1. Ongoing debate: How should the Constitution be interpreted?
Strict Constructionist: judges are bound by wording of the Constitution
Originalism/Textualism (Scalia)
Activist/Loose Constructionist: judges should look to underlying principles of Constitution
“Living” Constitution (Breyer)

2. Judicial Activism

3. Judicial Activism Definition
Judicial activism is the term used to describe the actions of judges who go beyond their constitutionally prescribed duties of applying law to the facts of individual cases, and "legislate" from the bench.
These judges create new constitutional rights, amend existing ones, or create or amend existing legislation to fit their own notions of societal needs.

4. Judicial Activism Characteristics
Philosophy that the courts should take an active role in solving society’s problems
Courts should act as a “guardian” of the people
Decisions that:
Overturn old precedents and/or create new policies
Are based on personal views or changing societal values
Are justified using a broad interpretation of the Constitution

5. Cases considered to be examples of ‘activism’
By Liberals:
Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
Bush v. Gore (2000)
Shelby Country v. Holder (2012)
By Conservatives:
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA v. Casey (2003)
United States v. Blewett (2013)
oyez.org

6. Please respond on your paper (you may refer to your pocket Constitution)…
Do you believe that students should be required to say the Pledge of Allegiance?
Does the Constitution protect your right not to say the Pledge of Allegiance, or a local government’s right to require you to say it?

7. Judicial Restraint
Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power.
It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional.
The goal is to allow the other branches to solve social, economic, and political problems.
Courts should merely interpret the law rather than make law.
Suggests that the courts should follow original intent of Founders: decide cases on basis of what the Founders wanted.