Example Of Essay On Mid-Term Questions Exam

(1). As set forth in the Constitution and through judicial interpretation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court plays a number of important and necessary political and legal roles. First, it is one of the three branches of the federal government. Accordingly, as provide for in the Constitution, it is an essential part of the system of checks and balances that guarantees that no one branch is able to become too powerful. In this role, the Supreme Court may check the power of the Congress or the president through the determination of whether their actions abide by the Constitution. A second, political role that the Supreme Court plays is its part in the separation of powers with the federal government. In this role, the judicial power, or the power to hear legal cases, interpret the law, apply the law to the facts of a case, and render legal opinion, is vested in the Supreme Court and the justices that sit on the Court. The Supreme Court’s judicial power also establishes its legal role. To be sure, the Supreme Court stands at the top of the United States legal system. As such it serves as not only the “court of last resort” for the federal court system but also as the federal court system’s administrative lead. Additionally, it plays the court of last resort for state court systems, at least in terms of the interpretation and application of the U.S. Constitution.
Judicial review refers to the power of the Supreme Court, and all courts, examine a government action or policy and declare that action or policy is invalid if the Court finds that it does not comply with the Constitution. While there is no express mention of judicial review in the Constitution, in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall reasoned that the Constitution’s grant of judicial power to the Supreme Court, including the ability to interpret what the law is, implied that it also had the power to invalidate actions that were found in opposition to the law.
Advocates of the theory of a “living constitution” argue that the Framers wanted the Constitution to be flexible enough so that as the times changed so would how it was interpreted. Accordingly, constitutional interpretation rather than based on the words of the document should be based on the principles that underlie the words. In this way, while the Fourth Amendment, for the Framers meant protection of citizen for a physically “unreasonable search or seizure”, can be interpreted today to protect a virtual search such as by a “heat sensing” device. On the other hand, advocates of the “originalist” theory argue that the Constitution should be interpreted not only form the plain text of the document but also how those words would have been understood by the Framers at the time that the Constitution was drafted. Under this theory using “a heat sensing device would not constitute an unreasonable search. In considering both theories, the living constitution theory is the more reasonable one
(2). In the 2002 Joseph Frederick was a public high school student in Alaska. As his school’s Olympic Torch Rally, Frederick displayed a banner that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”. After seeing Frederick’s banner, the school principal, Deborah Morse, asked him to put it away as it violated a school policy that prohibited actions that might be deemed to support illegal drug use. When Frederick refused, Morse took the banner away herself and suspended Frederick from school. Frederick then sued Morse and the school for violated his civil rights, in particular his First Amendment right to free speech. At the trial level, the court dismissed Frederick’s complaint finding that there was nothing illegal about Morse’s actions because, in her role as principal, it was reasonable to assume that it was her understanding that school policy had prevented the display of the banner. In appeal to the federal appellate court, the Circuit Court reversed and found that not only was it unreasonable for Morse to take the banner away because such an act was clearly a violation of the First Amendment but also that Frederick, even though he is a teenager and a student, does have some First Amendment rights that should protected. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the issues were whether Frederick had First Amendment rights that protected his display of the banner and whether Morse could use her discretion to take the banner away. In a 5-4 opinion, the Court found that while Frederick did have some First Amendment rights, those rights did not protect his displaying of a banner at a public school that, in the Court’s view, was promoting the use of illegal drugs. Accordingly, the school had the power to order him to take to sign down or to take the sign down on their own. The Court did not rule on the second question as it did not need to answer it.
The case was focused on the First Amendment provision that states, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” Simply based on the language and intent of that provision, it would seem that the Supreme Court made the correct ruling on the case. Indeed, what the provision would seem to be focused on is prohibiting Congress from restricting the public from discussing politics or religion as opposed to prohibiting a high school student from expressing his wish to smoke marijuana for Jesus. Nonetheless, Supreme Court case law has also established that students do have rights to express themselves. Under that case law, the ruling seems incorrect in that the act seems to be targeting content of Frederick’s message rather than the enforcement of school policy. Accordingly, I would most likely be writing for the dissent in this case.
(3). The Second Amendment provides in relevant part that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” While this short phrase does not at first glance seem very controversial, it has produced extensive debate and discussion over the last several decades. On the one side of the debate are those that believe that the purpose of the Second Amendment is the creation of a constitutional right to own a firearm. In support of this belief, advocates point to the plain text of the amendment as well as their interpretation of what the text would mean to the Framers of the Constitution at the time that it was drafted. Under these two ideas, advocates argue that there is a right to own a gun and this right must be protected as zealously as one would fight to protect the freedom of speech or religion. On the other side of the debate are those that believe, the reference to arms in the Second Amendment points to the necessity of having a militia for national security purposes and the need for a militia to be armed if it was to be effective. Under this theory, there is no individual right to own a firearm but rather a societal right to be able to establish and arm a militia in desperate time. Accordingly, under this theory, the government could enact laws that prohibit the individual ownership of guns but could not prohibit the establishment and arming of a militia.
Based on the wording of the text of the amendment, both sides have reasonable arguments. However, when considered as a complete phrase; it does seem that the focus of the Second Amendment is not for individual ownership but group ownership. Accordingly, the argument put forth by those that believe that gun ownership can be prohibited or at least more strictly regulated is the more convincing of the two arguments and would be the one that I would support.