Rhetorical Analysis Of Antonin Scalia's America

In America’s time there have been many great men who have spent their lives creating this great country. Men such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson fit these roles. They are deemed America’s “founding fathers” and laid the support for the most powerful country in history. However, one more man deserves his name to be etched into this list. His name was John Marshall, who decided case after case during his role as Chief Justice that has left an everlasting mark on today’s judiciary, and even society itself. Through Cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he established the Judicial Branch as an independent power. One case in particular, named Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), displayed his

‘Transformed beyond recognition from the vision of the Founding Fathers.’ Discuss this view of the modern US constitution.

The questions presented to the Supreme Court in Raich v. Gonzales (2005) are whether the Commerce Clause affords Congress the power to ban the growth, use, and sale of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act and whether it can enforce that act against ill people whose doctors have prescribed medical marijuana as a remedy. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice John Paul Stevens employed Justice Stephen Breyer’s strand of pragmatism to answer those questions. The premise of Breyer’s approach is that the Constitution enshrines values and principles, but it grants judges the flexibility to apply those principles to changing circumstances (Yale 11). Hence, pragmatist judges embrace constitutional

The Founding Fathers of the United States of America laid the foundation for the basic and fundamental rights that its citizens are entitled to. These principles have been the underlying framework for the United States of America’s government and legal system, where the citizens hold the power. Throughout the country’s history, many laws on both state and federal levels have been challenged and have thus evolved America’s culture. Among these laws that have challenged the Constitution is a famous court case from 1965: Griswold v. Connecticut. A highly controversial case, Griswold v. Connecticut paved the way for future controversies and legal development of its kind.

In the Marbury Vs. Madison’s case Justice John Marshall represented the case and I strongly believe that his points were solid and worth to be granted true and rational. John Marshall’s argument is that the acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution are not laws and therefore are not progressed into law to the courts, and ultimately the judicial boards’ first responsibility is always to practice and to make firm of the Constitution.

The Federalists Papers were written in the eighteenth century by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay in an effort to persuade New Yorkers to ratify the new U.S. Constitution. These papers are said to be the key that unlocks the true interpretation and meaning of the Unites Sates Constitution. One of the controversial topics relating to the Constitution that the Federalists Papers help to straighten out, is the practice of judicial review by the Supreme Court. In this essay, I will point out many of the examples Alexander Hamilton gives in Federalist No. 78 that support the idea of the Supreme Court having power of judicial review over all levels of

Based on the research of Justice Alito, he was appointed by former president Gorge W. Bush as one of the Supreme Court Justices on January 31, 2006 and is currently a Republican Party federal justice. His approaches to things are very unpredictable and distinctive from what he is viewed as. However, his conservative standpoint is still a part of his image. This paper will include: the background of the justice, the judicial philosophy he approaches, and his opinion on a dispute.

The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican

In the Marbury versus Madison case, Chief Judge John Marshall distinguishes three questions that are used in the judgement of the case. He debates whether the applicant has a right to the commission he demands; whether, if he has a right and that right has been violated, the laws of his country afford him a

Written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, the Federalist Papers are a collection of essays that were created in order to defend the Constitution against claims that stated it threatened the freedom and liberty of individuals, and gave too much power to the national government. The 78th essay of the Federalist Papers was written by Alexander Hamilton in efforts to address one of these concerns, that anti-federalists feared the independence of the Judiciary. In this paper, Hamilton recognized and acknowledged the concerns that the anti-federalists had with the Judiciary and defends it by stating why it is necessary for our government and why the people should not fear it for being undemocratic. He creates his argument by explaining how judges are appointed, making clear its purpose and detailing how it’s the least dangerous branch. These ideas that he expressed and argued for can be most clearly seen implemented into Article III of the Constitution, which covers the Judiciary.

The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.

The Federalist Papers, as a foundation text of constitutional interpretation, are frequently cited by American jurists. Of all the essays, No. 51 is the fourth most-cited.[1]

Comparing the two, Dworkin is right to assert his belief that the US Constitution should not be interpreted to be compatible with the concrete expectations of those long before our time. In particular areas, the understanding of existing constitutional law goes out farther than the original understandings of the framers of the Constitution. In many instances, Scalia’s originalism would fail to fit current practices in society.

Antonin Scalia, who is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, wrote A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and The Law in 1997. Scalia is the Senior Associate Justice since he is currently the longest-serving justice on the Court. Scalia was born in New Jersey, but attended public grade school and catholic high school in New York City. Later, he moved onto attending undergraduate school at Georgetown University, and then receiving his LL.B degree from Harvard Law School. After many years of teaching, serving in the Nixon and Ford administrations and advising, Ronald Reagan appointed him to the Supreme Court in 1986 to fill an open seat and has been there ever since. In 1997, Scalia decided to write A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and The Law. This first part of the book is an essay titled "Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System: The Role of United States Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws,” which talks about Scalia arguing that the common-law outlook is not appropriate for statutory and constitutional interpretation. The second part of the book includes responses from scholars who have read Scalia’s essay. These responses include diversity throughout their reactions, which makes the third part of the book even more interesting. The third part of the book concludes with Scalia’s responses to each of the comments, questions and statements that were directed toward him or his essay.

At any given moment in the judicial history of the United States one has witnessed where the Supreme Court has rendered decisions based upon the learned jurisprudence of its constituent members and their respective backgrounds. Each of the individual Supreme Court Justices bring with them an ideological perspective whether be it conservative or liberal of their view of the interpretation of the Constitution.1 With that ideology comes their application of the law with respect to the myriad and complexity of cases that are heard before the Court. Two such cases in which there was witnessed a distinct ideological change in the opinion of the Supreme Court with respect to the Sixth Amendment include Betts v. Brady (1942) and Gideon v. Wainwright (1963).2 These two cases pondered and deliberated the argument over the course of twenty-one years as to whether defendants in a criminal case are entitled to court appointed counsel under the guarantees of the Sixth Amendment should they not be able to afford one. During the time period between these two landmark Supreme Court cases there were other factors which helped contribute to the change in Court’s opinion. These factors include a change in Supreme Court membership, the change in the political and cultural environment, as well as the change in interest group involvement between the two cases. The purpose of this paper is to show how the ideological leanings and perspective of the Supreme Court