The Supreme Court And The Constitution Essay

PAGES
3
WORDS
1029
Cite

Is the Constitution Still Relevant? No—What Matters is Who Has the Power to Decide What the Constitution Means
The Constitution is relevant when people want it to be, and irrelevant when they do not want it to be. For instance, everyone become a Constitutionalist when he starts arguing that habeas corpus (Article I), due process (5th and 14th Amendments) and freedom of speech (1st Amendment) are important. But at other times people argue that gun rights (2nd Amendment) should be overturned and arms confiscated and banned, or that safety should come before the right to privacy (3rd, 4th and 5th Amendments). Thus, people are generally torn about what parts of the Constitution are relevant and what parts are not. Typically, when it comes to themselves, they want the protections of the Constitution—so if they feel that society poses a threat to themselves, they generally want the right to bear arms. If they feel the government poses a tyrannical threat, they want habeas corpus, due process and freedom of speech. If they feel they have the right to their own privacy and do not want their homes searched or their digital data spied on by the NSA, they are in favor of Amendments 3 through 5. It all depends upon what people want. If they feel Big Brother has their best interests in mind, they typically do not care about the Constitution at all.

The Constitution does still protect and safeguard some of the rights and liberties of the people to extent promised by the Founding Fathers, but as Jefferson warned the Supreme Court has largely taken over defining what is meant by the Constitution through judicial review. Thus, the Constitution is now interpreted by the Supreme Court and it says what the law means. So overtime the rights and liberties supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution have been twisted and changed, giving more power to the totalitarian regime. Big Brother is now allowed to stop and frisk people (aka the Terry Stop). Big Tech openly spies on people (Alexa is always listening), and gun rights are increasingly being stripped because people with mental problems get guns and kill people. (When guns are finally banned, those same sick people will just use buses or cars or knives like they do in England and France). So the Constitution used to protect people more or less, but today it is up for grabs whether...…seem like an expression that should be covered under free speech the totalitarians in DC think differently and they will not tolerate expressions of contempt directed by the little people towards themselves. But if you want to kill the baby in your womb at 8 weeks, that is okay because the 14th Amendment somehow applies in that case—though it does not apply to keeping other people’s eyes off what’s on your laptop or cell phone.

This is the type of insanity that has come along: the Constitution is basically whatever those in power want it to be. So if they want to promote abortion, they make up a reason for why the 14th Amendment protects what a woman does with the life growing in her womb—if she wants to kill that life, no problem. But if she decides she wants to kill that baby 1 week after it’s born, that’s infanticide. Unless you live in New York, where they are moving to legalizing infanticide, because why not—in today’s world the Constitution is whatever you want it to be, so long as you sit in the seat of power and authority. So what is really relevant? Power—the Constitution was a still birth.

Cite this Document:

"The Supreme Court And The Constitution" (2019, October 20) Retrieved April 25, 2024, from
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/supreme-court-and-constitution-essay-2174626

"The Supreme Court And The Constitution" 20 October 2019. Web.25 April. 2024. <
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/supreme-court-and-constitution-essay-2174626>

"The Supreme Court And The Constitution", 20 October 2019, Accessed.25 April. 2024,
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/supreme-court-and-constitution-essay-2174626

Related Documents

Supreme Court and Public Opinion The Supreme Court of the United States was established in 1789 as part of the basic three sections of the American governmental system: Executive (President and Staff), Legislative (Congress), and Judicial (Supreme Court System). Each U.S. State also has a supreme court, which is the highest law for interpreting cases that move into that jurisdiction. Essentially, the Supreme Court has the ultimate jurisdiction over all federal

While the decision has hung over states as one national standard, it infringes the essential principles of federalism and separation of powers that are rooted in the country's constitutional system (Silversten, 2011). During the time that the Supreme Court made this ruling, the state of Georgia basically had the same position on punishment for the crime of rape with many states. Actually, very few states permitted the executions or enforcement

Supreme Court cases (Muller V. Oregon) women's right Why it was an issue of national importance The Muller v. Oregon case was among the most crucial Supreme Court cases in the U.S. during the progressive regime. The case held an Oregon law that limited the working days for female wage employees to a maximum of ten hours. In 1908, this case created a precedent to expand access of national activities into the

Supreme Court Case
PAGES 2 WORDS 907

Supreme Court Case The Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson was an extremely important one, and one which set a significant precedent in the United States that would not be overturned until the Brown v. Board of Education decision in the middle of the 20th century. The former case set the precedent for what was known as the separate but equal doctrine. The principle question considered in this case was

Supreme Court Summary Case: Snyder v. Phelps Docket Number: 09-751 Petitioner: Albert Snyder Respondent: Fred W. Phelps, Sr. Facts of the Case: The family members of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder filed a lawsuit against the members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Louisiana. The members of the church had picketed at Snyder's funeral. The family alleged that the church members were guilty of defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentionally inflicting emotional distress to the Snyders.

What is interesting about this decision is how the Supreme Court was able to draw a fine line that allowed the rule of law to continue, yet not to such a point that it would interfere with Congress' post-war actions in the now occupied South. At the time of the decision, Congress was held by a Republican majority. What this case holds is that because the South seceded, during the