Judicial Activism Is Necessary To Protect The Rights Of American Citizens.

Contention 1-

The majority does not perform the greatest ability to protect all members of a society. In the case of Miranda v Arizona, the courts had to decide whether or not a man was deprived of his freedoms while in police custody. Basically Miranda v Arizona completely changed the way police apprehend and interrogate suspects. However it was not only Miranda, but many other instances where the majority has not protected all minorities. Vignera v New York was another similar instance where a suspect was forced to sign statements and an inculpatory statement, while being questioned by police, without knowing he was entitled to legal representation. In California v Stewart, local police held and interrogated the defendant for 5 days, until he finally made an oral admission, all without being notified of his right to legal representation.

Bob Egelko states, "Following the Supreme Court's lead [of expanding rights through activism], lower courts have taken control of prisons and mental hospitals after finding that the state was failing to protect inmates, a vulnerable group, from abuse." For example, in Massachusetts, inmates in mental hospitals were not properly cared for, nor were the facilities up to state regulations. The state had refused to step-in and take control of a privately operated prison and mental patient facility, neglecting many inmates who were to be protected from only themselves.

Contention 2-

The Constitution of the United States of America is intentionally vague, and therefore must be open to interpretation. There are several reasons to why the Constitution is vague. The originally formed document by the founding fathers was the Articles of Confederation. This document lacked major things such as a Supreme Court, outlined basic rights of citizenship, and a central banking system. The states were not content with such a document, as they wanted a more integrated country. Quickly the founding fathers came back together to form the constitution we know today. They were sure to be very broad on this second draft. There are 2 reasons why. They felt if they were to explicit, the states would feel it too restrictive and not pass it. Then again if it was to broad, as the Articles of Confederation were, then once again, the states would not pass it. Therefore the fathers came to the basic Bill of Rights, and the catch-all Amendment 9, states rights. The framers completely intended on including this Amendment into the constitution, as they wanted a document that was stable, which could define central ideals, yet make them hard to change. This in turn created a document that can evolve over time, but keeping the original uniformed intent.

Now because the Constitution is inherently and intentionally vague there needs to be a branch of government to extrapolate specific rules and laws. This branch just happens to be the judiciary. Why the legislature cannot be this branch is simply because the legislature is too broad and takes too long. John Conyers has stated that, "senators don't really read the bills" presented before them, and Ron Paul, another senator stated, "laws are created very broad."

Contention 3-

Judicial activism protects minorities. I'm not talking about just racial minorities, but every type of minority,