In the United States of America, the Constitution has always been a document that upholds and protects the rights of individual citizens. However, the country's founding fathers drafted the Constitution in 1776 using broad and general terms, leading to debate and disagreement over whether the Constitution was written to be interpreted by the Court's justices. supreme in a literal and narrow sense, or whether it was intended to be interpreted by the judges of the Supreme Court in a literal and narrow sense. evolve and be interpreted taking into account progress and change in society. The belief that judges should have no say in the implications of the Constitution is called "strict constitutionalism" or "judicial restraint." The philosophy called Living Constitutionalism, or Judicial Activism, states that the Constitution was written to evolve over time and that Supreme Court justices have the right to decide which rights fall under the Constitution, although those rights are not specifically set out in the document. The Living Constitutionalism view believes in the power of judicial review, meaning that judges have the right to interpret the law. This school of thought has been said to be undemocratic because judges are not elected by the people, but they can determine what is constitutional or not, thereby thwarting the intentions of the government. However, allowing Supreme Court justices to apply the power of judicial review is not only just, but necessary for a progressive society, as well as respecting liberty. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay In order to understand the practice and applications of judicial review, it is essential to know how the Supreme Court system works. Supreme Court justices are appointed by the current President of the United States when a seat needs to be filled. Once the potential judge is elected by the president, the judge must pass a background check by the Senate Judiciary Committee, to ensure that he or she has a clear state of mind and past. Finally, the nominated judge goes before the full Senate for approval. After taking these steps, justice serves a lifetime. Although Supreme Court justices are not directly chosen by the people, they are chosen by presidents of the United States and considered by senators, elected by the citizens. It is important to realize that the United States is not a democracy, as this process illustrates, but a federal republic. Although judicial review may be considered undemocratic because judges are not directly elected by the people, it does not necessarily run counter to federal republic government. In the United States, granting judges the power of judicial review has repeatedly proven to be a fair solution. in Supreme Court cases. After the power of judicial review was first authorized in 1801 by Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court was able to interpret the Constitution to apply it to modern issues. A famous court case, Nixon v. United States in 1974 is an example of how judicial review allowed the Supreme Court to make a decision that was fair to the citizens and government of the United States. In President Nixon's decision against the United States of America, the central question posed was whether it was constitutional for the President to conceal certain personal items because of his executive privilege; or, in simpler terms, if thePresident is above the law. Because of the power of judicial review of the Supreme Court justices, the Court was able to use the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution and, although the Constitution does not include a specific reference as to whether the president is above the law, the Supreme Court Justices ruled that it was unconstitutional for the President of the United States to use his executive privilege to hide things such as voice recordings that could well constitute evidence in criminal courts. This decision is very important for the United States because it created a precedent, or case law, that the president cannot ignore the law of the land without consequences. Through the power of judicial review, judges are able to interpret the Constitution to ensure that decisions are fair to all parties involved. In the Supreme Court, the power of judicial review is necessary because it gives the United States of America the opportunity to change and recognize new problems and violations of human rights. In 1776, when the Constitution was written, issues such as racial segregation were not considered "bad" or "unjust" simply because the ideology of the time did not view African Americans as people, but as goods. Less than two hundred years later, in 1954, the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court proved that times had changed, as the case revolved around the constitutionality of racial segregation. The court's decision overturned the precedence established by Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, which upheld the "separate but equal" mentality. Due to the changing mentality of society, today's issues were never even considered while drafting the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment, which the court used in its reasoning, says nothing specifically regarding racial segregation. However, through the judges' power of judicial review, the Supreme Court ended a human rights violation at the federal level. Without judicial oversight and living constitutionalism, either the United States Constitution would not last due to its lack of flexibility, or society would not be able to recognize and enforce human rights domestically. The Mindset and Applications of Judicial Review, or Judicial activism grants citizens of the United States individual liberties. Griswold v. Connecticut and Loving v. Virginia involved couples who were denied their basic freedoms by state governments. In Griswold v. Connecticut, in 1965, a couple was denied the right to use contraceptives by the State of Connecticut. The Supreme Court, due to judicial review and living constitutionalism, has ruled that couples should have the right to privacy within their own homes, thereby allowing the use of contraceptives. The Constitution says nothing directly about privacy, but without the power of judicial activism, Connecticut would still have banned the use of contraceptives, denying fundamental rights and freedoms. In the case of Loving v. Virginia, in 1967, the constitutional question of interracial marriage was raised. Once again, credited with the power of judicial review, interracial marriage was found to be constitutional due to the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it was concluded that not allowing interracial marriage was contrary to the constitutional liberties of the people. Proponents of judicial restraint often point out that judicial review can contravene the intentions of elected officials, even if.."