I find it interesting that most of the United States
Supreme Court Justices attended Harvard or Yale. Stephen G. Breyer is the 108th
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. He was appointed in 1994 by President
Bill Clinton. Breyer argues that the job of the Supreme Court is to apply the
Constitution’s values to modern circumstances, using the tools of judging:
precedent, text and an assessment of the purpose of the constitutional provision
at issue. I agree that the Constitution should be applied to modern day circumstances.
Our country was built and is based upon the Constitution, and no matter what
the circumstances may be, the Constitution should stay relevant to today.
I think judicial review should be exercised
regularly. In today’s world, I think most people in charge of the country have
disregarded the Constitution. Every time a school shooting happens, they start
talking about taking guns away, when it is the people’s Second Amendment right.
They never think that maybe the people, who use the gun to do these horrendous things,
have serious mental health problems. I think the government should start with
mental health people than all of the United States.
If it is possible to strictly apply the Constitution
and apply the Constitution to the changes of society, then I think both. I think
the constitution should be applied strictly to the changes of society. The Constitution
needs to be strictly enforced, but it also needs to adapt to society. The way I
think it is now, is the government has kind of pushed aside enforcing the
Constitution as a way to work around what is needed for society, essentially governing
unconstitutionally.
I commented on the blogs of Robert Johnson, Mathew Cooper, and Stephanie Steele.
I commented on the blogs of Robert Johnson, Mathew Cooper, and Stephanie Steele.
I do believe in the same along the lines of the constitution. We are an ever-evolving society and changes will always be eminent and within those societal changes so does the changes of the constitution need to happen. Yes, the founders were very strict in the initial outlay of the writings and practices of the constitution, however we are a very long way from what the original writers times were. It’s going to be interesting to see where the progressiveness of changes will happen, however it’s going to be a challenge on what changes with the times versus what is considered unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the Constitution is the framework to the rules of society. The changes are always going to happen, but the rules are in place for a reason. "If it isn't broken, why fix it!"
ReplyDeleteThe Judicial review is just that a review. There should be a legitimate reason to review it.
The Constitution isn't to be changed. It is the way the country has ran for years.