Judicial activisms deal the laws of the constitution and the power of judicial review. There are
two philosophies on how to apply these constitution principles from a legal standpoint. Judicial
activisms consist of two groups: strict constructionists and interpretations.
Strict constructionists
argue that the Constitution should be implemented as it is written, and if rights, responsibilities,
and liberties are changed, they would be put through Congress first. With this side of the
argument, it a right is not in the Constitution, it simply does not exist. Strict constructionists
think that because something should be a law, doesn't mean that one gets to decide if it is or not,
therefore, judges should not create laws.
Interpretationists (activist) have a different view. They believe that the Constitution is a living
document and based on the language it was written in, it accommodates the changing of times
and circumstances. They pay less attention on precedent, minimize procedural obstacles, and do
less deference to other political decision makers. They believe that processes like due process are
flexible so it can address new questions and concerns. Interpretationists have a looser view of the
constitution than constructionist and think the right should be recognized because of "evolving
standards.
Reference:
Pollock, J.M. (2019). Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice (10
th
ed.) Cengage.
