Unit 3 – Law & Order Day 2: Interpreting the Constitution Objectives: I can give an example of an important legal precedent I can describe the criteria of good laws WARM UP: What are the differences between good laws and bad ones? Take Out: Judicial Branch in a flash reading and worksheet

Unit 2B – The Executive & Judicial Branches Day 5: Supreme Court & Judicial Review Essential Question: How do courts defend and interpret the constitution?

Article 3-Judicial Branch

Powers of Supreme Court Judicial Review - Can declare laws of Congress unconstitutional Case of Marbury v Madison gives it that right

The Supreme Court 9 Justices (1 Chief Justice; 8 associate justices) Lifetime terms appointed by President; confirmed by Senate Legal training NOT required by constitution

Majority & Minority Opinions Minority / Dissenting At least 5 justices Legally binding Sets court precedent Concurring Agrees with majority opinion but for different reasons 1-4 justices Explains basis for disagreement with Majority opinion Sometimes leads to cases being re-considered later: Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned by Brown v. Board

Interpreting the Constitution Strict Construction The constitution means exactly what it says We must limit government power Laws that go beyond what the constitution says are unconstitutional Examples of Strict construction No right to privacy Constitution does not mention privacy No affirmative action Would be discrimination against white people

Interpreting the Constitution Examples of Living Document Approach Slavery ok in 1789; not today Segregation legal under 14th Amendment in 1896; not in 1954 Often used to extend new rights to minority groups Allows the court to change its mind Living Document Constitution must be interpreted in the context of today’s world Elastic clause allows the constitution to evolve over time

Precedents Supreme Court opinions MUST Be followed by all other courts Be enforced by the Executive branch Be respected by Congress

Stare Decisis Stare Decisis – “let it stand” Idea that once the court has ruled, the ruling is considered “settled law” Courts don’t need to re-examine the same legal question after the Supreme Court has ruled

The Impartial Judiciary?? Judges are supposed to be non-partisan Job is to interpret the law, not make it BUT: presidents pick justices who share their views on the constitution Republicans tend to favor strict construction Democrats tend to favor the living document approach http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itgB9XnKjQU

Politics of the Court Current Court: 5 appointed by Republican Presidents (2 by G.W. Bush, 1 by G.H.W. Bush, 2 by Reagan) 4 appointed by Democratic Presidents (2 by Obama, 2 by Clinton) Obama’s re-election is key to the future of the court If re-elected, Obama will likely make 1 and possibly as many as 3 nominations to the Court