Jiya
Evaluate the extent to which the supreme court has protected constitutional rights in
recent years?
28/30 – A* Grade
Tips for improving and getting 30/30
Write with more sophistication but make sure you 100% know if the words make
sense in the context your writing in.
Mention some other political commentators’ views (as done with Chris Evan Hughes)
Back up with more evidence/ recent examples which will show a thorough and deep
understanding of topic
The supreme court has protected constitutional rights completely in recent years. The court
has utilised both the vagueness of the constitution and their power of judicial review as a
means to fully protect constitutional rights. Although opponents to this view would oppose
the proposition positing instead that the supreme court has ceased protecting constitutional
rights and are now ‘finding’ new rights in the constitution, this is weak. The constitution
cannot be expected to have enumerated modern-day issues for the court to protect.
Opponents may further argue that the court compromises individual constitutional rights
favouring the rights of the state instead. However, state rights constitute constitutional rights
and although this is rare that the court does not uphold individual rights, the rights of the
states are enumerated in the constitution. As such, it is clear that the supreme court clearly
has protected constitutional rights in recent years.
The supreme court fully protects constitutional rights through their power of judicial review.
Because of the entrenched nature of the constitution, the supreme court is endowed with the
final say on matters of constitutional dispute. The supreme court has clearly utilised their
power of judicial review in recent years to protect constitutional rights. For example, the
supreme court has clearly protected the first amendment right of free speech. This can be
seen through Texas v Johnson where the court ruled that state’s banning the desecration of
the American flag was a violation of the first amendment. Moreover, in Citizens United v FEC
2010 the court concluded that by capping the extent to which an individual could donate to
an election campaign was unconstitutional as it infringed an individual’s constitutional right to
free speech. This justifies the proposition. If the supreme court did not protect constitutional
rights, there would be rulings of individual rights being infringed. The absence of this clearly
justifies that the supreme court has completely protected constitutional rights through the
use of judicial review.
In addition to this, the supreme court clearly protects constitutional rights through utilising the
vagueness of the constitutional as a means to justify their rulings. For example, the
contentious issue of gay marriage was solved in Obergefell v Hodges which concluded that
denying an individual the right to marry was violating the 14th amendment. While the
constitution is silent on the issue of marriage, this has allowed judges in particular those that
subscribe to the judicial philosophy of judicial activism such as the Warren court of 1953-
1969 to conclude rulings that protect constitutional rights. For example, the supreme court in
2003 overruled its 1986 decision to criminalise certain homosexual acts viewing it as a clear
violation of the 14th amendment. This can further be seen in McCutcheon v FEC where the
supreme court again protected the 1st amendment. It has utilised the vagueness of the
constitution as a means to protect enumerated rights too. For example, in Riley v California
2014 the supreme court concluded that police could not search the phone of a suspect
without a warrant. While mobile phones are in no way mentioned in the constitution, the
vagueness of it has allowed judges to protect constitutional rights. While opponents to this
Evaluate the extent to which the supreme court has protected constitutional rights in
recent years?
28/30 – A* Grade
Tips for improving and getting 30/30
Write with more sophistication but make sure you 100% know if the words make
sense in the context your writing in.
Mention some other political commentators’ views (as done with Chris Evan Hughes)
Back up with more evidence/ recent examples which will show a thorough and deep
understanding of topic
The supreme court has protected constitutional rights completely in recent years. The court
has utilised both the vagueness of the constitution and their power of judicial review as a
means to fully protect constitutional rights. Although opponents to this view would oppose
the proposition positing instead that the supreme court has ceased protecting constitutional
rights and are now ‘finding’ new rights in the constitution, this is weak. The constitution
cannot be expected to have enumerated modern-day issues for the court to protect.
Opponents may further argue that the court compromises individual constitutional rights
favouring the rights of the state instead. However, state rights constitute constitutional rights
and although this is rare that the court does not uphold individual rights, the rights of the
states are enumerated in the constitution. As such, it is clear that the supreme court clearly
has protected constitutional rights in recent years.
The supreme court fully protects constitutional rights through their power of judicial review.
Because of the entrenched nature of the constitution, the supreme court is endowed with the
final say on matters of constitutional dispute. The supreme court has clearly utilised their
power of judicial review in recent years to protect constitutional rights. For example, the
supreme court has clearly protected the first amendment right of free speech. This can be
seen through Texas v Johnson where the court ruled that state’s banning the desecration of
the American flag was a violation of the first amendment. Moreover, in Citizens United v FEC
2010 the court concluded that by capping the extent to which an individual could donate to
an election campaign was unconstitutional as it infringed an individual’s constitutional right to
free speech. This justifies the proposition. If the supreme court did not protect constitutional
rights, there would be rulings of individual rights being infringed. The absence of this clearly
justifies that the supreme court has completely protected constitutional rights through the
use of judicial review.
In addition to this, the supreme court clearly protects constitutional rights through utilising the
vagueness of the constitutional as a means to justify their rulings. For example, the
contentious issue of gay marriage was solved in Obergefell v Hodges which concluded that
denying an individual the right to marry was violating the 14th amendment. While the
constitution is silent on the issue of marriage, this has allowed judges in particular those that
subscribe to the judicial philosophy of judicial activism such as the Warren court of 1953-
1969 to conclude rulings that protect constitutional rights. For example, the supreme court in
2003 overruled its 1986 decision to criminalise certain homosexual acts viewing it as a clear
violation of the 14th amendment. This can further be seen in McCutcheon v FEC where the
supreme court again protected the 1st amendment. It has utilised the vagueness of the
constitution as a means to protect enumerated rights too. For example, in Riley v California
2014 the supreme court concluded that police could not search the phone of a suspect
without a warrant. While mobile phones are in no way mentioned in the constitution, the
vagueness of it has allowed judges to protect constitutional rights. While opponents to this
