American Government in the Beginning,

American Government In the beginning, the Supreme Court merely interpreted the law. It began with six justices and a chief justice, now there are eight justices and a chief justice. The President nominates the justices, the Senate confirms them, and they serve for life. Many experts believe that change is inevitable in an organization as old as the Supreme Court, and that change is good. The court was originally quiet and even retrospective in the past, and power always shifts in the court, which can also bring change.

Today, the court plays more the role of the activist, and they no longer just interpret the law, they actually create law. The court is much more efficient today, and livelier in their discussions. Lengthy discussions and opinions are no longer the case, and that allows the court to hear more cases. The court actually maintains a "living Constitution" that continually applies to new, complex situations, allowing the Constitution and the court to grow along with the country.

Judicial restraint is the belief that courts must uphold any acts of Congress and state legislatures unless they specifically violate a section of the Constitution. They also believe that the courts should defer to Constitutional interpretations by the President, Congress, and others if at all possible. They also do not approve of judicial review, and they believe the court should not make policies, it should just interpret the law, which is completely opposite of the beliefs of judicial activists.

Judicial activism, on the other hand, believe they have the will to make the law when responding to legal issues, and judges should use their power to correct injustices, especially when other levels of government do not act. They believe the courts should play an active role in creating social policy on many issues like civil rights. political unfairness, public morality, and individual rights. Judicial activists like Chief Justice Earl Warren used their power to invoke the Constitution in social changes like school desegregation.

They believe the government must stay current with the times and change, rather than become archaic. Capital punishment is one of the most hotly debated punishments in our judicial system. That is because it is a very emotional issue, and both sides are equally convinced their ideas are right. Because it involves taking a life as punishment for a crime, it is an ethical and moral dilemma, too.

Supporters of capital punishment believe it helps keep crime down by scaring potential criminals about the sacrifice they could pay if they commit a heinous crime. They also believe that if the criminal committed a crime like murder, that they could do it again if they faced the possibility of parole, so they believe capital punishment is good for public safety. They also believe that it is retribution for the crime the person committed, and retribution for the victim's family. Those who oppose the death penalty feel.