Norm's New Aff. AMY, SARA, CRITIQUE!!!

AFF


Judicial Activism is necessary to protect the rights of American Citizens

Definitions

Judicial Activism- The practice in the judiciary of protecting or expanding rights that depart from established

Necessity- that which is undeniable because it is part of an invariable process

Right- an entitlement, these include legal, human, and civil rights

We speak today not of the means to an end and whether or not they are good or bad, or lead to positive or negative consequences. We speak to day of necessity, which is defined as something “that which is unavoidable because it is part of an invariable process.” In other words the something is judicial activism, the process is the protection of our rights. Therefore my value shall be protection of rights. An important part of this process is the Idea that that which is right and just and necessary is such regardless of or at the very least not entirely based upon consequences, judges are aware of this, they make the right and necessary decision even even the consequence is negative. This is because what’s right is right regardless; therefore my criteria shall be this idea, non-consequentialism.


-My first contention-
In light of non-consequential theory, Judicial activism is necessary because it is an undeniable part of our governmental system, and has been so for just over 200 years. Judicial Review was established as a principle part of our Judicial system in the 1803 decision of Marbury v Madison, which referenced Article III of the constitution. It is in actuality the result of and a form of Judicial Activism. Judicial Review and Judicial Activism have proven themselves to be more than capable of protecting our rights. As an example of the judicial branches moral usage of this power and ability, I would like to bring the 1841 case of United States v. Amistad to the table. This case was an issue in 1841, two Spaniards purchased a group of Africans and had planned on transporting them from Cuba to Principe, the Africans overpowered the crew killing two men. They ordered the remaining crew to bring them back to Africa and instead were brought to the United States, the US seized the ship arresting the Africans and releasing the Spaniards. When the case was brought before the court, the US Navy crew involved in the seizing of the ship claimed the Africans as part of the salvage, the Spaniards claimed them as there rightly purchased property. The supreme court’s decision included that the Africans were not property and “be and hereby are declared to be free.” This occurred at a time when it could have had very negative consequences, and it certainly had some, but the judges looked beyond such consequences and did what was right, they have that luxury, unlike the legislature. The legislature is far more bound to consequence because of the nature of the election process, if they simply ignored consequence they probably wouldn’t get reelected, the judiciary can do what’s right regardless. There are many other examples of the high court protecting rights without wholly considering consequence, through Judicial Review and Activism: Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizona, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg County schools, and others, which proves the astounding ability of this necessary part of our governmental process.

-My second contention-
The second and invariable part of this argument is that Judicial activism ensures the protection of the Majority’s and Minority’s rights. Miranda v. Arizona is an example of this, ensuring that everyone had those 5th 6th and 14th amendment rights, you have to remember that initially the Bill of Rights only applied to dealings with the federal government. The supreme court began expanding it to the states under the 14th amendments equal protection’s clause. Another example is Mapp v. Ohio in which the right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures, broadening the court’s exclusionary rule policy over the entire public in order to ensure that we are all given the right to be secure in our persons, everyone the majority and the minority. I shall also point out Brown v. Board of Education as an example of the Judiciary protecting the right of equal education. Because the judiciary has proven itself time and time again to be an integral part of the process of protecting our rights and of the government in general for over two-hundred years it is necessary, it is a necessity. It has repeatedly protected our rights and also done so in an expedient and effective manner, regardless of some of the possible negative consequences that could have and have occurred. This is because that the things which are right and necessary and just are right and necessary and just by themselves, consequences are not the only things that matter.

In closing I will simply sum up the basis of my argument. The definition of necessity, according to Funk and Wagnall’s standard desk reference, is “that which is unavoidable because it is part of an invariable process. Judicial activism has become just that an indispensable part of our governmental process, without it we could still be dealing with many problems of the past that the judiciary took into there own hands to correct. I leave with a quote by one of our founding fathers, Patrick Henry, “The great and direct end of government is liberty. Secure our liberty and privileges and the end of government is answered. If this be not effectually done, government is an evil.” Judicial Activism ensures our “liberty and privileges” are effectually protected. Thank you.