Justice Thurgood Marshall Analysis

The constitution of the United States is an insightful and revolutionary idea of how a government should be practiced in order to prevent a greedy, corrupt form of government from establishing and taking over its people. The US government is founded on the principle that it works for its people, meaning that whatever is legislated is meant only for the benefit of the American people. However, the Constitution is at this point flawed due to the fact that many of its proclamations are vague and outdated, and has to be left to interpretation as to what the framers truly intended of it. This is dangerous because it further divides the nation when Americans believe in different forms of what is constitutionally righteous, and this may start a civil

Born in Maryland, Thurgood Marshall was another activist for civil rights. He went to an all-black law school, after being denied entry into the University of Maryland Law School. He would later take the school to court, and win, for violating the 14th Amendment. He went on to handle many landmark cases, as the primary attorney for the NAACP. One of the history making cases was the previous decision on the Plessy v. Ferguson case, convincing the Supreme Court to overturn the original ruling.

Rehnquist argues that Marshall saw the constitution, not only as a document, but as a “charter” that represented the will of the people (O’Brien 166). However, the argument made by Rehnquist reinforces Marshall’s interpretation of judicial review as the will of the majority. By comparison, Judge William Justice takes a different approach from Rehnquist on the interpretation of Judicial review. Judge Justice argues that Hamilton’s intention was for the court to be a “bulwark” against “Majoritarian excesses,” (O’Brien 181) so as to protect against the tyranny of the majority. Likewise, Hamilton saw the same principle of the court as a “bulwark” against congress.

This established an example of Judicial review done by the Supreme Court. Section 7 of Article I of the Constitution gave the President the ability to veto a bill, but it also gave Congress the ability to discard the President’s veto. Marshall was the one who gave the Supreme Court the ability to discard laws that were passed by Congress and the President. This was implied in the Constitution. This is the only place in the entire Constitution that the abilities of Judicial review are talked

The rule of law is reflected as a core principle of our nation and vital to ordered liberty. To rightly govern the American rule of law it is essential to acknowledge the continuity between the American Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. The United States of America “government” is framed by these two important documents. The principles of the Declaration of Independence constitute the foundation of the government based on the universal equality of all human beings, and the U.S. Constitution founds the political process that is to be followed by the elected officials in governing the people. One cannot be without the other; both are essential for a stable government.

By considering the US constitution a living document, it lends weight to the position that it is indeed a flexible constitution because although there are limited formal amendments that have been passed through Congress over time, the interpretation of the basic principles of the constitution may change to mean different things in line with the

Hello diary. I address you today with confusion and apprehension, with consternation and disappointment, disappointment in a country that I fear has let me down. I write to you asking for help, guidance, and strength. I write to you regarding the President’s nomination for Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, hoping the words I write breed clarity and confidence in my future actions. I first heard of Bush’s selection in the paper this morning.

The right wasn't created as a result of the constitution, but rather ensures that the government cannot revoke it. This right is essential for self protection, therefore, certain precautions must be taken in order for the right people

In contrast, Opponents believe that arms should have regulations because they cause violence, such as mass shootings and murder. Despite the differences on each side, the second amendment aids in the protection of all individual rights of the people to keep and bear arms for self defense when necessary. As a result, the definition of the right to bear arms has to be provided. The second amendment is quite a chicanery clause to understand, the first part of the clause stated “ a well-regulated militia.” “Well regulated…” was defined in the eighteenth century as properly but, not overly regulated (Roleff 69).

In the constitution it states, that its our right to bear arms. Were allowed to keep guns in our possession for fun or just protection. 59% of homes in america have a firearm which can be stolen from other people and soon your guns will become a part of illegal gun trafficking. When gun control laws came in affect gun crime spiked to 89% or 18 million cases for gun

In contrast, Opponents believe that arms should have regulations because they cause violence, such as mass shootings and murder. Despite the differences on each side, the second amendment aids in the protection of all individual rights of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense when necessary. As a result, the definition of the right to bear arms has to be provided. The second amendment is quite a chicanery clause to understand, the first part of the clause states “ a well-regulated militia.” “Well regulated…” was defined in the eighteenth century, as properly but not overly regulated (Roleff 69).

" Some reasons why this amendment was made are that the framers wanted adults to know how to use a weapon and to be ready to use a weapon if they were attacked. During this time, the British troops were still attempting to overtake the new land, one of the ways they did this was by attempting to take the people’s guns. There was still reason to believe that British would still attack the new country and the United States did not have a real army, so any military action needed to be responded to by

From the Constitution’s ratification in 1787 through the 1850s, many American historians shared the consensus that the founding fathers had designed the Constitution the way they did because they were trying to protect the citizens and their rights. James Kent was one very prominent historian among this group. In his book, Commentaries on American Law (1826), he stated “THE government of the United States was erected by the free voice and joint will of the people of America, for their common defence [defense] and general welfare...and it is justly deemed the guardian of our best rights, the source of our highest civil and political duties, and the sure means of national greatness.” (Kent) Essentially, James Kent was trying to convey the point

The Constitution—the foundation of the American government—has been quintessential for the lives of the American people for over 200 years. Without this document America today would not have basic human rights, such as those stated in the Bill of Rights, which includes freedom of speech and religion. To some, the Constitution was an embodiment of the American Revolution, yet others believe that it was a betrayal of the Revolution. I personally believe that the Constitution did betray the Revolution because it did not live up to the ideals of the Revolution, and the views of the Anti-Federalists most closely embodied the “Spirit of ‘76.” During the midst of the American Revolution, authors and politicians of important documents, pamphlets, and slogans spread the basis for Revolutionary ideals and defined what is known as the “Spirit of ‘76”.

Since the begining of America, the Founding Fathers wrote the strong-standing Bill of Rights with amendments to protect the country that had just recently won their freedom, but one amendment has been the top theme of controversies for centuries. Gun laws offend the Bill of Rights in so many ways and they prove ineffective. Gun Laws are relevant due to thousands of deaths and self-protection. The argument goes on but without guns there is militia, one of the main intents of the Second Amendment. These simple rules can reduce deaths, proven by millions of influential people.