ETVT SCOTUS effectively protects constitutional rights
14 keer bekeken 0 keer verkocht
Vak
Unit 4A GOV4A - The Government of the USA
Instelling
AQA
This essay for Edexcel A-Level Politcs earned a high A*. This essay effectively demonstrates the constitutional rights upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. It follows the correct structure, utilises high levels of evaluation and includes and argues for many key SCOTUS cases.
Evaluate the view that SCOTUS is effective at protecting constitutional rights.
The effectiveness of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in safeguarding
constitutional rights is a subject of ongoing debate and scrutiny. In this context, constitutional
rights are fundamental human rights guaranteed to individuals through both the original
constitution and amendments. I will be using ‘effective’ to mean consistently in the majority
of cases, SCOTUS upholding rights. In this essay I will be arguing and evaluating through
the categories of abortion, voting rights and gun rights, and come to the conclusion that
SCOTUS is not effective in protecting constitutional rights.
Firstly, the subject of abortion has been an ongoing debate within the US, but arguably
SCOTUS has protected it as a constitutional right. The 5th amendment states that no person
should be deprived of ‘life, liberty, property, without due process of the law’ and the 14th
amendment displaying right to privacy, and this can be seen as upheld from the 1973
landmark case of Roe v Wade. The Court's decision, led by Justice Harry Blackmun,
legalised abortion by establishing a woman's constitutional right to choose within certain
parameters. By recognizing a woman's right to make decisions about her own body,
SCOTUS underscored the protection of individual liberties as enshrined in the Constitution.
While critics have labelled the decision as an example of judicial activism, asserting that the
Court extended its reach into policymaking, proponents argue that the ruling exemplifies the
judiciary's role in safeguarding fundamental rights when legislative frameworks may fall
short. Roe v. Wade remains a pivotal illustration of the Court's engagement in interpreting
the Constitution to protect and expand individual freedoms. In addition to this, the court's
decision was reaffirmed by the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v Casey. In Planned
Parenthood v. Casey 1992, SCOTUS reaffirmed and built upon the foundation established
by Roe v. Wade regarding the constitutional rights related to abortion. The Casey decision,
authored by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter,
reaffirmed a woman's constitutional right to choose to have an abortion, emphasising the
principles of personal autonomy and bodily integrity. While the Court acknowledged that
states have an interest in protecting foetal life, it upheld the central holding of Roe v. Wade
that states cannot place an "undue burden" on a woman's access to abortion. This
reaffirmation demonstrated SCOTUS's commitment to maintaining a delicate balance
between protecting the constitutional right to choose and allowing states some regulatory
authority over abortion. In doing so, the Court continued to assert its role in interpreting the
Constitution to safeguard individual liberties while recognizing the evolving nature of legal
standards and societal values. However, although these cases seem to demonstrate
SCOTUS upholding the constitutional right for women to access safe abortions, this is a
weak argument when it is demonstrated how this was undone with a later case. Abortion
rights in America from 1973 seemed entrenched and everlasting, but this was revoked in the
2022 case of Dobbs v Jackson. he Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case
involved a challenge to a Mississippi law that sought to ban most abortions after 15 weeks of
pregnancy. The Supreme Court's decision in this case could potentially impact the
constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v.
Casey. The court ruled that abortion should not be a protected right. This set a precedent
and set off ‘trigger laws’ which enabled many states to enact legislation which restricted
women's ability to gain an abortion, with the penalty of possible imprisonment. This could be
due to the changing of the justices' ideologies. Trump was able to replace the most liberal
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
√ Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, Bancontact of creditcard voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper melissac3. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €8,58. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
