Options Menu: Forum

Question

Topic: Interpreting the U.S. Constitution

Consider the following scenario: The Supreme Court interprets the U.S. Constitution. Thomas Jefferson once argued against the doctrine of judicial review. He believed in the principles of "checks and balances," whereas the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court have equal authority to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. It is undisputed that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding (Article VI). However, at times, the Supreme Court makes decisions that challenge Christian principles, such as its decision on abortion.

Therefore:
a) Should judicial review be eliminated? Provide a detailed explanation for your answer.
b) If judicial review were eliminated, what alternative means could be used to interpret the meaning of the Constitution?

Answer 1

Again -- how would you like Jiskha tutors to help you with this assignment?

Answer 2

By ansering the questions... I've read the constitution and all my materials, but not really sure what to say. Ugh!!!

Answer 3

You first have to make a decision about what YOU think. Should courts be able to interpret laws and declare them wrong if the judges feel these laws go against the Constitution?

Why do you believe that?

Answer 4

Thank you..

Answer 5

You're welcome.

Answer 6

I bet you go to Liberty