Should judges cultivate a more strict-constructionist or liberal-constructionist judicial philosophy? Also, should judges with the philosophy you select be more judicially restrained or judicially active? reate a unified and cohesive argument. Form a claim by selecting one option from each of the two questions above. Include and defend at least two arguments for each claim. For question two, include and rebut at least one counterargument.

Strict constructionism is a judicial philosophy that interprets the constitution narrowly, to avoid straying from the meaning intended by the founding fathers, while a liberal or loose constructionism allows for a wider interpretation of the constitution. Judges should cultivate a more liberal constructionist philosophy because the Supreme Court deals with important social issue cases like gay marriage, adoption, capital punishment, sex education, and creationism. The constitution was created during a time of minimal activism, slavery was legal, women and minorities couldn't vote, which is why there should be a more modern approach, so the court will be prepared to handle modern issue cases.

 Judicial activism is traditionally linked with a more liberal political approach because society used to be dominated by conservatism, now by activism and social change. In the 1960s, abortion rights, voting rights, civil rights where all fought for by the people. For example, Brown vs. Topeka 2954 ruled segregation in public places as unconstitutional, as a breach of the 14th amendment, which overturned Plessy vs Ferguson 1896. This was judicially active because 14th amendment was not designed to get rid of de-segregation, it was originally for the emancipation of slaves, similarly Roe vs Wade 1973 was a loose decision in that is loosely interpreted reproductive privacy from liberty within the 14th amendment

Some examples of ideological conservatism in recent years is Bush. vs. Gore 2000, under the 14th amendment it was deemed unconstitutional to re-count Florida vote, though this is an exception as it did not set a precedent, Shelby Counter vs. Holder 2013, overturned the part of the voting rights act that required federal government to check up on the states, making sure they implement voting laws properly. 1995 US vs. Lopez- ruled the free school zones act 1990 as unconstitutional as it exceeded congressional power to legislate under the commerce clause, an example of actively striking down a law created by congress in a conservative way.

Some examples of judges being inconsistent in their application of loose vs strict constructionism, most judges make decisions which best delivers their ideological desire. Under Clarence Thomas, a supposed originalist, voted that it was constitutional for the first amendment to be applied to corporations, which is clearly very loose interpretation.

With swing Justice Kennedy, 1989 Penry vs Lynaugh, even though it was of a liberal ideology, Kennedy ruled that the execution of someone who was mentally handicapped was constitutional under the 8th amendment. Then, in Atkin's vs. Virginia, on the execution of another mentally handicapped man, Kennedy changed mind. He said it was unconstitutional under the 8th amendment, he made this decision after being responsive to changing social opinion. This shows that democratic constitutionalism means letting the public inform his judgements, by 2002 majority of states had made it illegal. Lead to views constantly changing over time. 

Explanation:

This is what I turned in lol