The supreme court has the power to rule if a policy is constitutional or not, and their ruling can have a wide spread affect, even though they have no power to enforce these decisions except what people will give them, thus a lot of their power rests on public opinion, and people's trust that they are wise and learned. The most well known case involved with national policy would be Brown v the Board of Education, where the court ruled that it was unconstitutional for schools to be segregated. This did not sit well with the public and in Brown II they rephrased their decision to be acceptable enough that it would be done.
The court has the power to redifine the constitution in accordance with the times, so that the spirit of the law remains, but the laws change to fit the times. In Furman v Georgia, the court ruled capital punishment unconstitutional, later it was revised but capital punishment standards have gone up, and is generally frowned upon unless the crime is very serious. In Gideon, the court changed due process of the law to provide lawyers to anyone being tried with a jury, which states readily accepted.
The court has the ability to overrule any law or policy passed that it deems unconstitutional. in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition, the court ruled the Child Online Protection Act, which was supposed to prevent minors from viewing por over the internet, unconstitutional, but it upheld the Protection act in regards to the pandering or soliciting of child pornography. 371
The founders, keeping in mind a system of checks and balances, gave power to the Supreme Court to determine the Constitutionality of the laws Congress passes. Although the Supreme Court is not able to have a direct influence on the making of public policy, the Court is able to rule on the Constitutionality of the policies that Congress passes when the case and time to do so comes forth. The only point at which the courts’ have any role in national policy making is when they rule on a case brought forth to them. At this point they are able to adjust the law in order to coincide and flow with the guidelines that the framers originally put forth and the amendments that have been had to the Constitution.
The Supreme Court hears many cases each year, but few receive national recognition in policy making. Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, Engel v. Vitale, and Miranda v. Arizona are only a few of the landmark cases in which the Supreme Court directly affected and changed public policy. In Brown the Supreme Court stated that de jure segregation was unconstitutional. By creating this public policy the Court put their trust in the executive and legislative branches of government to enforce this policy, just as they do for every other case they rule on. In Roe v. Wade, Engel v. Vitale, and Miranda v. Arizona the Court ruled on these cases creating national policy that a woman’s choice to have an abortion is protected by her right to privacy, prayer in school is not allowed, and you must be aware of what are now called your Miranda rights, respectively.
Policy making occurs from the Supreme Court only when a case comes before the nine justices and they believe in a majority decision that part or all of what occurred in the case is unconstitutional. The Court decides the legality of cases by directly interpreting the Constitution. The Court is able to do this, but in order to have any effect on a national scale they must have the trust of the people. If the peoples’ political ideology is not trust worthy of the Supreme Court, just as it is with the President and Congress, then their judicial decisions and national policy making will not be acknowledged.
The supreme court has the power to rule if a policy is constitutional or not, and their ruling can have a wide spread affect, even though they have no power to enforce these decisions except what people will give them, thus a lot of their power rests on public opinion, and people's trust that they are wise and learned.
ReplyDeleteThe most well known case involved with national policy would be Brown v the Board of Education, where the court ruled that it was unconstitutional for schools to be segregated. This did not sit well with the public and in Brown II they rephrased their decision to be acceptable enough that it would be done.
The court has the power to redifine the constitution in accordance with the times, so that the spirit of the law remains, but the laws change to fit the times. In Furman v Georgia, the court ruled capital punishment unconstitutional, later it was revised but capital punishment standards have gone up, and is generally frowned upon unless the crime is very serious.
In Gideon, the court changed due process of the law to provide lawyers to anyone being tried with a jury, which states readily accepted.
The court has the ability to overrule any law or policy passed that it deems unconstitutional. in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition, the court ruled the Child Online Protection Act, which was supposed to prevent minors from viewing por over the internet, unconstitutional, but it upheld the Protection act in regards to the pandering or soliciting of child pornography. 371
The founders, keeping in mind a system of checks and balances, gave power to the Supreme Court to determine the Constitutionality of the laws Congress passes. Although the Supreme Court is not able to have a direct influence on the making of public policy, the Court is able to rule on the Constitutionality of the policies that Congress passes when the case and time to do so comes forth. The only point at which the courts’ have any role in national policy making is when they rule on a case brought forth to them. At this point they are able to adjust the law in order to coincide and flow with the guidelines that the framers originally put forth and the amendments that have been had to the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court hears many cases each year, but few receive national recognition in policy making. Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, Engel v. Vitale, and Miranda v. Arizona are only a few of the landmark cases in which the Supreme Court directly affected and changed public policy. In Brown the Supreme Court stated that de jure segregation was unconstitutional. By creating this public policy the Court put their trust in the executive and legislative branches of government to enforce this policy, just as they do for every other case they rule on. In Roe v. Wade, Engel v. Vitale, and Miranda v. Arizona the Court ruled on these cases creating national policy that a woman’s choice to have an abortion is protected by her right to privacy, prayer in school is not allowed, and you must be aware of what are now called your Miranda rights, respectively.
Policy making occurs from the Supreme Court only when a case comes before the nine justices and they believe in a majority decision that part or all of what occurred in the case is unconstitutional. The Court decides the legality of cases by directly interpreting the Constitution. The Court is able to do this, but in order to have any effect on a national scale they must have the trust of the people. If the peoples’ political ideology is not trust worthy of the Supreme Court, just as it is with the President and Congress, then their judicial decisions and national policy making will not be acknowledged.