NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
The paper, The Future of Limited Government, by Jim L. Riley, is an examination of the conflict between government authoritarian control and individual freedom. It discusses the involvement of the Supreme Court in balancing this conflict, while paying particular attention to the Courts decisions under Chief Justice Earl Warren. The paper also discusses various social theories stated by Lynne Iglitzen, B. F. Skinner, and Robert June concerning the impact of human behavior in the control / freedom conflict.
The paper concludes by recognizing that rapid developments in technology demand a reevaluation of civil rights and liberties. It is important to recognize that the paper was written in 1974, and while some of the points it makes continue to be relevant, the author could not have anticipated the post- 9 / 11 realities affecting the duty of the government to protect its citizens and the effects on individual freedoms when that duty is dismissed. The paper was also written during the time when the Watergate scandal made government intrusion the great issue of the day. One hint of the time this paper was written is the stark distinction the author makes between liberals, as supporters of the individual against an oppressive government, and conservatives.
In our current age of political correctness, it is much more difficult to draw any such distinction, when the so-called liberals of the 1960 s and 1970 s have become the thought regulators of the 2000 s.
The author quotes the first activist, Chief Justice John Marshall, as saying his Court was expounding the Constitution. Even Marshall did not claim the right to shape it. An example used repeatedly in the paper is the Warren Court and its activism. While there can be no doubt of the impact of its decisions on American society, there remains a widely held view that the Warren Court exceeded its Constitutional authority by using its judicial decisions not just to interpret laws, but to make them. Although it can be argued that Chief Justice Warren and his Court exceeded their Constitutional role in order to right social wrongs, its actions revealed a weakness in the Constitution.
When an activist Court exceeds its authority, it unbalances the separation of powers laid out in the Constitution by leaving the representative and executive branches of the government without alternatives. This type of activism in the Court would be similar to a President opposing a Supreme Court decision by military order. As the paper points out, Justice Black recognized that Constitutional (and social) stability result from institutionalized change based on equal chances for all participants, not the imposition of a forced idea of equality. The society we live in today, however, looks more to our courts to correct all wrongs, inequities, and human errors. While the writers of the Constitution recognized the legal equality of all people, they could not have ignored the natural inequality of individual abilities. The Constitution was never intended to guarantee equality.
That would be impossible. What it guarantees is an equal chance. Looking back with the benefit of hindsight, the Warren Court protected minority rights by forcing social change in a society where the majority probably was not ready for it. By expanding its authority in order to protect the rights and privileges of... vulnerable minorities, the Warren Court created other inequities, like racial quotas, school busing, and reverse discrimination that resulted in conflict, and in some cases, in violence.
Another prevailing conservative view of the Warren Court is that, in addition to overstepping its Constitutional authority, it went much too far in protecting the rights of those accused of crime at the expense of the direct victims of the crime and the good of society in general. The protections, like those involving the exclusionary rule cited in the paper, are seen as providing a haven for criminals. Courts have extended these Supreme Court decisions to, in effect, tie the hands of law enforcement officials, who must walk a tightrope of technicalities or face losing critical evidence. In the final analysis, truth is truth, and unless evidence is planted or otherwise false, does the means in which it was discovered jeopardize the innocent? Is it unreasonable to expect members of society to live within the laws they accepted to become members of that society?
Through its decisions, the Warren Court appeared to answer yes to these questions, but the suppression of truth can weaken justice. As an example, consider the cases of O. J. Simpson and actor Robert Blake. Suppression of evidence allowed them to get away with murder. Whether authorized or not, some Supreme Court decisions have done much more than interpret law.
They have decided some basic questions of being human, such as the cited 1973 decision to overturn anti-abortion laws as being an unconstitutional invasion of the right of privacy. In its decision, the Court at that time decided when a life form becomes a human being and when the basic right to life begins. That question is beyond the realm of mortals to decide, yet the Court did decide. If its judgment was wrong, and there is no way to make that determination, then it took away an inalienable right under the Constitution. If such questions concerning inalienable rights are within the Constitutional authority of the Supreme Court, then the question must be asked: Where are its limits? If the Court can decide that a life form is not a human being before birth, can it also decide that one stops being human when it stops being productive?
By this decision, the Supreme Court seems to have put itself into a vulnerable position. While the ability to terminate a pregnancy safely was beyond the science of eighteenth century United States and forced euthanasia was not an issue, there can be no question that the 1973 decision put the spirit of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness in jeopardy. The authors overall premise and conclusion about the Supreme Court are as relevant today as they were in 1974. In a rapidly changing world, the balance between government authority and individual freedoms are constantly being tested, and the role of the Court has never been more important, but the paper concludes, Disregard of inherent limits in the... exercise of the Courts judicial power...
may impair the Courts position... This was quite evident recently in the Presidential election of 2000, where some liberals believe the Court overstepped its authority, acted injudiciously, and in doing so, undermined its moral authority. The point the paper makes about the involvement of the Supreme Court in economic issues is also interesting. Since the Great Depression, the Court has not used much of their authority in this area. The authors assertion of the economic policy decisions residing almost entirely with the Executive and Legislative branches was still true as recently as last year, but may change in light of situations like the Enron bankruptcy, which has far-reaching social repercussions.
Free research essays on topics related to: warren court, individual freedom, court decisions, supreme court, chief justice
Research essay sample on Supreme Court Warren Court
