A2-AQA GOV4A Politics 10th June 2013

Scroll to see replies

US v. Lopez ruled that so called "Gun Free Zones" around schools were unconstitutional as it infringed on a person's right to bear arms.
It is definitely possible to argue that the Rehnquist court and Roberts Court have been conservatively active however you could also say that courts are only really labelled active when people disagree with their rulings.

Gonzales v. Carhart upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act which meant the court deferred to Congress' legislation.
NFIB v. Sebelius held that the ACA (Obamacare) was constitutional, again meaning that the court deferred to the Executive/Congress' legislation.

Okay so how do you distinguish between active and restraint?
Many times its so difficult to distinguish a case.
If an essay on how active/restraint courts are what would you say

Reply 201

ironicdays

Original post by Bord3r

US V. Lopez was actually argued on the commerce clause not the 2nd amendment. The first to be argued on the 2nd amendment was District of Columbia V. Heller

Reply 202

Bord3r

Original post by ironicdays

US V. Lopez was actually argued on the commerce clause not the 2nd amendment. The first to be argued on the 2nd amendment was District of Columbia V. Heller

Oh yeah, my bad :redface:

Thanks!

Reply 203

RobMoon

I'm guessing a lot of people here are planning on doing Supreme Court then judging by the discussion?

Reply 204

ineedtorevise127

Original post by ironicdays

Active- Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore, Brown V. Board of Education
Restraint- Dickerson V. United States
It's very difficult to define whether a case is active or restraint. However activism is seen as striking down policy decisions by other government officials or institutions

Why would Dickerson VS US be restraint is it cause it removed Miranda VS Airzona?

Reply 205

ironicdays

Original post by ineedtorevise127

Why would Dickerson VS US be restraint is it cause it removed Miranda VS Airzona?

No, the court had the opportunity to overturn Miranda but largely due to the principle of stare decisis decided to uphold it :smile:

Reply 206

LAMPERMAN

Original post by RobMoon

I'm guessing a lot of people here are planning on doing Supreme Court then judging by the discussion?

Excellent pun there sir...'judging' by the discussion, superb :wink:

Reply 207

Scatach

Original post by ineedtorevise127

Why would Dickerson VS US be restraint is it cause it removed Miranda VS Airzona?

Dickerson v United States (2000) upheld Miranda Rights, and so is restrained because it went along with the precedent established with Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Reply 208

Hannahm1995

Sorry, I don't get how judicial activism can be shown from United States v. Lopez? The majority decision was against progression of banning guns in school zones? It upholds the right to have guns which surely is restraint?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 209

LAMPERMAN

Have a nasty feeling federalism is going to come up for topic 1 tomorrow...topic 3 I'm feeling a bit of EXOP and the Cabinet and for Topic 4 I hope hope hope that its how political the nomination/confirmation process for the Supreme Court is (doubt it though!)

Reply 210

LAMPERMAN

Original post by Hannahm1995

Its up to how you interpret it really. Yes it shows restraint because it upholds the 2nd amendment rights of being allowed guns. However, it does also show activism as the ruling set limits to Congress' power through the commerce clause.

Reply 211

Bord3r

Original post by Hannahm1995

Well in that sense yes, but they struck down a law that had been put in place by a state legislature so they were actively shaping the laws and society.

It is definitely a more conservative type of activism though, and it is based on a strict constructionist view of the constitution.