Explore BrainMass

The Constitution And The Original Meaning

This content was STOLEN from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

This week we examined two different ways of interpreting the Constitution. Using one or the other as a basis, make a case for or against the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade. State clearly from the beginning which school of thought you are flowing, then take a position, and finally show how your school of thought on constitutional interpretation informs a position you will take on retaining or overturning Roe v. Wade.
Remember - and I'll restate it here - this is not so much a paper on the restriction of abortion as it is a paper using constitutional interpretation as a method to justify a positon on Roe v. Wade, one way or the other.

In addition to the arguments on original meaning in the text book, read and use the Unit 3, 3.2 on the restriction of abortion. Your paper needs to be a minimum of 500 words. Use APA standards. You may not use Wikipedia for a source.

2 references

© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 25, 2018, 10:07 am ad1c9bdddf

Solution Preview

The first thing you will want to do is review the Supreme Court Ruling issued in 1973 and argued in 1971 to gain an understanding of why the Court ruled in the manner in which they did. What many do not realize is that the Court did not rule that there was a Constitutional Right to an abortion; rather the Court cited Due Process and the 14th Amendments right to Privacy. The Court found that there were two competing interests at hand, on one was protecting the health of the mother, and on the other was protecting the potential for human life. The state has the right to intervene only when the procedure is more dangerous than childbirth or when the fetus is not viable and even then there are limitations. In part the decision also ruled that an unborn child is not a person as defined by the ...

See Also This Related BrainMass Solution

Approaches to the Constitutional interpretation

Answer the following with 200 words or more based on the Four Approaches to the Constitutional Interpretation listed below:
1.) Clear Meaning, 2.) Adaptation 3.) Original Intent 4.) Structuralism

a. Which approach best characterizes Justice Stevens' opinion of the Court in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995)? Explain.
b. Which approach best characterizes Justice Thomas's dissent in the same case? Explain.

A central issue in constitutional politics involves whether the authority granted in Article II exhausts the powers of the President. To what extent does the President enjoy inherent powers and extraordinary powers in times of emergency? Scholars disagree on this important question. Discuss the theories of presidential power. Discuss the Supreme Court's acceptance or rejection of these theories by relying on cases that were discussed in this unit. Be specific. To which theory (or theories) has the Supreme Court subscribed, and why? To which theory (or theories) did the Framers probably subscribe, and why?

In his dissent in Baker v. Carr, Justice Frankfurter denounced the majority for "asserting destructively novel judicial power" in its decision. What did Frankfurter mean? What alternative remedy did Frankfurter offer in his dissent for those aggrieved voters who had brought this case? Explain.

Explain how Baker v. Carr and Shaw v. Reno, which are viewed as landmarks in establishing a cause of action under the Fourteenth Amendment, are analogous. With what objections from dissenters did Justices Brennan and O'Connor have to contend in their respective majority opinions?

View Full Posting Details