Creating law by the supreme court
Should we let the Supreme Court Create Law?
In 1914 the United States Supreme Court created a rule in the Weeks vs the United States case that dealt with Fourth Amendment violations in search and seizure. In 1949 in the Wolf v Colorado ruling the United States Supreme Court held that the 1914 ruling did not apply to the states. However, many states did adopt the rule, or something similar to it, into their own proceedings. In 1961 the Supreme Court, in Mapp v Ohio the United States Supreme Court extended the protections of the 1914 ruling to all the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Other important decisions such as the Miranda v Arizona and Roper v Simmons cases have followed a similar twisted path to becoming a national ruling on criminal case law. Of course, none of the provisions in these rulings are actually found in the Constitution. The whole process seems to some to be overly complicated and difficult to follow.
Provide your answer to the following question
Or, should we allow the Supreme Court to rule an action as unconstitutional and then be required to send the case back to the federal or state legislatures and let them create law that deals with it?
In your response, cite at least one other United States Supreme Court ruling and describe how it could have been dealt with differently to include allowing legislatures to handle the creation of the law.
Sample Solution
Yes, we should allow the Supreme Court to rule an action as unconstitutional and then send the case back to the federal or state legislatures and let them create law that deals with it. For example, in Roe v Wade (1973), the court ruled that states could not deny a woman her right to terminate her pregnancy before viability of the fetus due to a constitutional right of privacy.
Instead of creating new law, however, they struck down existing state laws prohibiting abortion and sent it back to legislatures for further regulation on how abortions were to be performed within their respective jurisdictions. This allowed legislatures to create laws which addressed medical safety standards and procedures for performing abortions while still recognizing the woman’s legal right derived from their ruling. Ultimately this ruling provided a framework for future legislation on both sides of the issue regarding abortion regulations without violating women’s constitutionally protected rights.
Yes, we should allow the Supreme Court to rule an action as unconstitutional and then send the case back to the federal or state legislatures and let them create law that deals with it. This is a more efficient way of legislating than having the court attempt to create new laws in order to resolve issues. It is important that we respect our judicial system’s established procedures in order for our laws to be just, fair and effective.
An example of this idea being put into practice can be seen in Roe v Wade (1973). The court ruled in favor of privacy rights held by women when making decisions regarding their pregnancy before viability of the fetus. However, rather than creating new laws on how abortions should be performed, they struck down existing state laws prohibiting abortion already on the books at that time and sent it back to legislative bodies so they could craft appropriate regulations addressing medical safety standards surrounding its administration without violating these newly recognized constitutionally protected rights. This allowed states to enact appropriate policies according to their own needs while still upholding basic principles outlined by the courts decision for all jurisdictions across the country.
Another similar ruling was made in Miranda v Arizona (1966) where justices decided that a suspect must be informed of certain rights prior to any kind of questioning by police because if not done so, any confession resulting from such questioning would violate 5th Amendment protections against self-incrimination. Rather than attempting itself write out what those specific rules were, it sent back guidelines for legislatures so they could adopt them within their respective states yet still recognize constitutional protections given under this ruling – requirements which are now obligatory nationwide due largely in part due its successful implementation through legal channels instead of courts trying dictate such specifics themselves.
In short, allowing Supreme Court rulings regarding certain matters that have constitutional implications sets up a framework which legislators can use when crafting proper legislation within their respective jurisdictions while simultaneously recognizing fundamental civil liberties granted under US Constitution no matter where one may reside . This is both much more efficient process as well as an effective way ensuring justice since it allows us abide by traditional practices set forth within our judicial system thus avoiding potential roadblocks or disarray caused when attempting take alternate routes outside those conventions which are already established.