Need information on the principles of the supreme court

[johncmcleod]

My debate topic is whether or not judicial activism is necessary for the protection of American citizens' rights. If I am the aff, I need to prove that things like Brown vs. Board of Education, Miranda rights, right to have counsel appointed, right to abortion, right to contraception, etc. could have only been done through the courts and could not have been done by passing laws through the legislative branch. If I am the neg I need to bring up things like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and say any of the major rights and/or policies brought about by supreme court decisions could have been done through the legislative branch, and that doing it through the judicial branch was unnecessary and unconstitutional.

This is just high school, and I need to write this case by tonight, so I don't want any heavy duty research. All I want is a little simple, easy to get information giving me the major supreme court cases and major legislation passed throughout US history and a brief overview of them. This isn't research, I'm just reading it to get the concept and get some examples.

The only thing I have going for the aff at the moment is that decisions on rights and the interpretation of the constitution should not be done through the legislature because politics will get into it, and decisions might be made as a result of a concession or something, and that is not the way constitutional decisions could be made. The legislature is the arena for passing bills and specific policies, not making general, theoretical decisions on the interpretation of the constitution.

But all the neg has to do is say that these major court cases and laws that have changed our country for the better could have been done by the legislature. It would also help if I could say judicial activism is unconstitutional. Because if the judges can make decisions and in effect make laws without having to answer to anyone, that would be unrestrained power.

Anything would be appreciated.

[flash9286]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&navby=year

Opinions for the cases, could you be a little more specific about what you want

[:) Smiley]

Constitutional amendments are initiated by the legislative branch before being sent out to approval by state legislatures.

This however requires approval of 75% of all states (not population) to do, which means that national attitudes can become very out of sync with national laws if cases such as civil rights were processed through the legislative branch instead.

[snoopy369]

You're probably going to want to look into the Marshall supreme court, and Marbury v Madison, the case in which the Supreme Court gave itself the power of judicial review ...

[Seeker]

They have principles?!

[johncmcleod]

could you be a little more specific about what you want

I'm looking for a website that might list some of the main, important supreme court cases and maybe some of the major legislation that has been passed throughout our history and give me a little overview of them. For example, it would show Marbury vs. Madison and give a little synopsis of what both sides argued, what the decision was and why the supreme court made that decision, and the effects of it.

I want this especially for all the major civil rights cases and legislation, because I believe most of it has come about throughout the courts.

Constitutional amendments are initiated by the legislative branch before being sent out to approval by state legislatures.

This however requires approval of 75% of all states (not population) to do, which means that national attitudes can become very out of sync with national laws if cases such as civil rights were processed through the legislative branch instead.

These aren't necessarily constitutional amendments, I am just looking at laws, and supreme court cases where a precedent was established. For example, Roe vs. Wade. The supreme court made a decision that went against the laws of the time, and thus it was judicial activism. The aff has to argue that it was perfectly constitutional and ok for the supreme court to do this. The neg has to say doing this was unconstitutional, that giving the supreme court the power to make their own decisions about laws gives them unrestrained power, and most importantly, that congress could have just as easily passed a law that legalized abortion.

When it comes down to it, the aff has to say the only way something like legalizing abortion could have come about was through the courts, and the neg has to say that it could have been done through the legislature.

[:) Smiley]

Supreme Court interprets laws in relation to the constitution; as in whether or not a law is constitutional or not.

In your case, aff is right in theory, neg is right in practice.

[johncmcleod]

Well the aff says that the supreme court should make decisions beyond that. ie privacy rights and abortion, those weren't in the constitution, but the supreme court formed policy by making decisions on those subjects by their own opinions on whether or not they should be allowed. The neg has to say that all the supreme court should do is make judicial review on laws and make sure they are constitutional. The neg has to say that if the supreme court is limited to only this, Americans' rights can still be protected.

And since on the aff, I am trying to show that the courts have been what establishes civil rights, I need examples of court cases where civil rights have been won for the minorities. And then I will say 'look at what the courts did.' For the neg, I need civil rights legislation, and they can say 'look at what the legislature did to protect rights without the supreme court.'

[:) Smiley]

Without judicial activism, the topics of privacy rights, abortion, and civil rights would have been left up to the states, as they were prior to the court decisions.

The result would be wide differences in the rights of citizens from state to state. Currently, the issues of gay rights and medical marijuana are in this category.

The timing of judicial activism usually occurs when the right has been guaranteed by legislation in a large number of states. This is sometimes referred to as the "what happens in California eventually happens everywhere" phenomenon.

For example, in the case of abortion, by 1973, about half the states had repealed or relaxed the ban via legislation. Many of these states were coastal states with high population, consisting a supermajority of the national population.