Compare judicial activism with judicial restraint, including how each philosophy interprets the constitution. explain at least one example of each.

Both terms refer to the concept of judicial review and are important for the analysis of the United States constitution. Judicial activism philosophy stands for the idea that the constitution must be interpreted in such a way that it includes personal opinions and biases on what the articles of the constitution actually mean and stand for and not just what is explicitly written. For example, in the constitution it says that according to the first ammendment there is a right to free speech. However, thanks to judicial activism we have an understanding of Hate Speech which doesn't fall within the domain of free speech. If we restrained on it then hate speech would be allowed according to the first amendment.

Judicial restraint is important because some justices believe that we should only apply what is strictly said in the constitution and there should be no personal opinions. For example, the second amendment gives people right to bear arms. Those who defend it claim that all weapons, even modern ones fall within the domain of it since arms means weaponry, so people should be according to this be allowed to have automatic rifles for example since it falls into the domain of arms.