Judicial Branch
What role do the courts play in interpreting the Constitution and implementing public policy?
The courts have the duty applying what they think the Constitution means to legal cases, laws, and executive actions. By deciding whether such laws, cases, or actions are constitutional, the courts can either make it easier or more difficult for other government officials to implement their policies. For example, if government officials pursuing a public policy to reduce violence and crime passed strict gun control laws, the courts could enforce that law, and thus help implement the policy, by declaring that the law is constitutional.
Are the courts "guilty" as some critics charge, of supplanting the legislative and executive branches by "legislating from the bench"?
Yes, the courts may "legislate from the bench" when their decisions in court cases become common law, or laws based on rulings from previous court cases. For example, in Brown v Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court made segregation in public schools unconstitutional, thereby making it illegal for any school to be segregated.
What is the proper role for the judicial branch in the public policy process?
The proper role for the judicial branch in the public policy process is major. They give the final verdict on things relating to the Constitution which all law must eventually return back to face. They set the standards to how far the law can go into everyday lives which creates a major impact in public policy.
What is the evolving relationship between the courts and the "civil rights"?
The courts make the final decision on all thing civil rights. Anything that the courts make an opinion on have to be considered final. They have ruled over many cases which makes for many of the Civil Rights Acts constitutional. This boundary has been more apparent than ever as they rule more on more on public policy issues and less on questions about the constitutionality of laws. They seem to be based entirely on civil rights, and not the questioning of Cognress's sometimes too far reaching laws.
The courts have the duty applying what they think the Constitution means to legal cases, laws, and executive actions. By deciding whether such laws, cases, or actions are constitutional, the courts can either make it easier or more difficult for other government officials to implement their policies. For example, if government officials pursuing a public policy to reduce violence and crime passed strict gun control laws, the courts could enforce that law, and thus help implement the policy, by declaring that the law is constitutional.
Are the courts "guilty" as some critics charge, of supplanting the legislative and executive branches by "legislating from the bench"?
Yes, the courts may "legislate from the bench" when their decisions in court cases become common law, or laws based on rulings from previous court cases. For example, in Brown v Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court made segregation in public schools unconstitutional, thereby making it illegal for any school to be segregated.
What is the proper role for the judicial branch in the public policy process?
The proper role for the judicial branch in the public policy process is major. They give the final verdict on things relating to the Constitution which all law must eventually return back to face. They set the standards to how far the law can go into everyday lives which creates a major impact in public policy.
What is the evolving relationship between the courts and the "civil rights"?
The courts make the final decision on all thing civil rights. Anything that the courts make an opinion on have to be considered final. They have ruled over many cases which makes for many of the Civil Rights Acts constitutional. This boundary has been more apparent than ever as they rule more on more on public policy issues and less on questions about the constitutionality of laws. They seem to be based entirely on civil rights, and not the questioning of Cognress's sometimes too far reaching laws.