To the Supreme Court, and the essential question Of representatives, and so he takes this caseĪgainst the Secretary of State of Tennessee at the time, who was Carr, and it eventually gets They have a lower population and had the same number Population than some of the rural areas where The same representation despite having a larger Not redistrict since 1901, after the census of 1900, and it was now the early 1960s, and he says because of that, and he invoked the 14th amendment, you weren't getting equal protection, that people in his county that had gotten increasingly urban and had gotten increasinglyĭense over the course of those 60 years, that they were getting Reapportioning districts based on population, but what Baker argued is is that the state of Tennessee actually did Have been understanding of where the population sits, and then the state should be Years there is a census, and based on that, we
The way it should be," that in general every 10 This area right over here, and he says that, "Look, the state is not reapportioning "its legislative districts
Mayor of a town outside of Memphis, which is in That Baker is a resident of Shelby County, Tennessee. Judicial restraint happened in the early 1960s, and that is the case of Baker versus Carr, and so what happens is is Going to strictly think "about whether something is constitutional "or whether it is not," and one of the most seminal cases on judicial activism versus "Our job is not to make new rules, "and so we are just This is a situation where the judges or the courts limit their power, so limit their own power, their own power, where they say, "Hey, look, our job is to justīe the umpire or the referee. I'll leave you to decide whether you think this Of positive activism, that they are defending liberties, that they are defending rights, especially in the socialĬontext that we're in. Interpreting the Constitution in the world as it is, and the world that weĪre in changes over time. "They're trying to make their own laws "through their rulings." Now some would say that it's necessary for the judicial to do this because they are They're not strictly looking "at the law. This would be a little bit of a negative, "legislatingįrom the bench." Legislating from the bench, and you'll often hear is that, "Hey, that judge or thatĬourt is legislating "from the bench," from the people who don't like their ruling.
It sometimes has an implication that the judges are Or an executive order, is unconstitutional, but as it's doing that, as it's exercising its judicial review, how does it go about doing that? And this term judicialĪctivism was first introduced by Arthur Schlesinger, who we've talked about in other videos, and it's meant to imply a judiciary that is not strictly just ruling based on maybe what the Constitution says but also their own personal ideas. It can say that an executive action, say a rule or regulation It can say that a legislativeĪction, that a law, that a statute is unconstitutional. One of its main powers, is to be a check on theĮxecutive and legislative branch, that it can exercise In many videos, we have talked about how the judicial branch, In this video is talk about the terms judicialĪctivism and judicial restraint.
0 kommentar(er)
