Of the Roe v. Wade to the U.S. system of judicial review

Keywords: Roe v. Wade, the right of judicial review of constitutional interpretation function
Abstract: Roe v. Wade, the controversial American history in a case, the case marked by the right to abortion, fetal right to life, privacy, and the contest between the rival, is still something more to say today. But as unconstitutional review system is well established sign of maturity.

I. Introduction case Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade, is able to cause such widespread discussion and controversy, as he no longer is a pure case, it has been given other specific meaning. This case the plaintiff Roy Texas real prototype is State-year-old woman, a 2l Norma McCoy, in the case occurred, she had ended a marriage, there is a 5-year-old daughter, raised by her parents, .1969, she just unemployed, and they pregnant, she was the situation did not allow her to have a child, she wanted to legally give up the child, but at that time, Texas law prohibits abortion. desperation, she found the two women lawyers Linda Philippine Examination and ɯ��Τ����, the three men on the Texas law on abortion are full of doubts, they decided to challenge the law in an attempt to repeal this provision. They realized that the child may have been the case before the end of born, and on McCoy for the win on her terms even if no actual meaning, but they still decided to carry out this action. Therefore, she will perform the abortion law in Texas prohibiting the Attorney Henry Wade, Dallas County (Heru'yWade) court. That said, the beginning of this case is a constitutional test, beginning with the recognition of a state law unconstitutional attempt and specific meaning.

Plaintiff claims Texas law prohibiting abortion violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments protected the right of personal privacy rights and choices that pregnant women the right to decide at what time, to any reason, in what way to terminate the pregnancy, that the Texas law prohibiting abortion was unconstitutional. The defendant argued that fetal life is constitutionally protected in the whole process of pregnancy is the right to life exists, and by the deprivation of fetal life due process amendment to section 14 prohibited acts, the child's right to life than women, right to privacy.

From the original defendant's claim that we can see that the focus of this case is: first, whether privacy rights protected by the Constitution, that is, whether from the constitutional right to privacy found in the source of legitimacy, second, whether the fetus a "right to life"
After the Supreme Court in 1971, 1972, the two discussed to 6:3 in 1973 to make final judgments: the provisions of Texas other than abortion to save the mother's life are the provisions for the crime, in violation of the constitutional amendment to Article XIV case due process requirements.

Supreme Court to make such a decision would be based on detailed in PArt IV.

Dissenting Justice White said: "As a constitutional basis for the court, whether it is studying the language, or go into the history, I have nothing ... ... to this ruling, over the court applied the constitutional right to judicial review, is short-sighted. "Justice wheel Qwest believes that the majority of judges will view their case Roy constitution drafters established in terms of" ignorant "on the right assumptions.

Second, the source of power of judicial review
The production of judicial review exercised by the executive power is the product of struggle for power, because it could become a constitutional response to the constitutional tradition. Judicial review of the direct source is the l803 in Marbury v. Madison, the outgoing Federalist PArty President Adams of people in the Justice system to arrange into their own forces, in time for the signing of a letter of appointment the day before leaving office appointed 42 judges, but stepped down due to various reasons in their certificates of appointment when there are several judges the issue was not timely, Ma Dian is one in which a judge. newly elected President Thomas Jefferson did not immediately require the Secretary of State issued the commission suspended Madison. According to < > Supreme Court have jurisdiction, but only under the federal Constitution, the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction and no original jurisdiction. If the Supreme Court Executive (Judiciary Act of 1789>>, you have openly admitted that Congress can expand the Constitution expressly granted any of the highest powers of the Court. Justice Marshall seize the opportunity to seize this opportunity to fight for the Justice system of power. Marshall obtained two points: first, the United States Constitution is the highest status within the territory of the United States law: second, by the U.S. Article III of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court of the United States federal judicial power, the right to decide their cases before the applicable law. Marshall, a political storm in the use of the authority of the Constitution to the Supreme Court for resolving the constitutional power of the force of law. Legal called judicial the right of review refers to the Supreme Court, in adjudicating cases, can Congress or the laws of the state legislature conflict with federal constitutional grounds, to determine its invalidity shall not apply. Links to Research Papers Download http://www.hi138 . com Third, the function of judicial review
In the political system of separation of powers, in the protection of legislative, administrative functions in their intended exercise of power within, rather than to each other beyond the authority, the courts play an important role
First, the U.S. Supreme Court to exercise judicial review, adjust, balance of power between the president and Congress. The United States Constitution does not change, and indeed with the legislative and executive powers to develop a different background or inhibition, which is the highest the right of judicial review the court at work. Second, the U.S. Supreme Court to exercise judicial review, coordinate legal hierarchy of the conflict, protect the authority of the United States Constitution Roe v Wade, the plaintiff argued that Texas law prohibiting abortion unconstitutional, the maximum After hearing the court has finally made the prohibition of abortion violated the provisions of Article IX of the Constitution and the provisions of Article XIV of the final judgments, and ultimately the provisions of Texas law on abortion failure. Roy cases in the areas of social life, to promote the application of unconstitutional censorship, marks the maturity of the system.

Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court to exercise judicial review to protect the legitimate rights and freedoms of citizens. The Supreme Court to safeguard the rights of citizens in the constitutional review of the applicable provisions of up to 1868 by the <<Constitution>> Fourteenth Amendment . this one is called due process of law clause or the equal protection clause. In the case of Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmun also recognized by Texas, which prohibits abortion of pregnant women in violation of the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment principles of due process protected by
Fourth, the use of the right way of judicial review
Unconstitutional the Federal Supreme Court case so special is that it conflicts with the supremacy of the Constitution, but the Supreme Court's position has not changed, he is still passive, and negative to the application of the Constitution, according to the constitution as the basis for the framework of the Constitution deal with the problem. any decision made by the Supreme Court must have a constitutional basis for interpreting the Constitution by the Supreme Court to exercise the right of judicial review. In Roe v. Wade, the plaintiff claims violations of the laws of Texas, their privacy rights and the right to choose to terminate the pregnancy, if the Supreme Court upheld the plaintiff's claim, the plaintiff's right to privacy must make a reasonable explanation. The problem is that there is no clear constitutional provision of privacy, how to draw from the constitutional right to privacy has become Justice Blackmun had a problem trying to Greasewood v. Connecticut case, the basis is found, the case plan in Connecticut Parents Group Executive Chairman of the Estelle. Greasewood and Charles. Dr Lee for providing birth control information and contraceptives were arrested because, according to �������Ҹ� law, their conduct is illegal in Connecticut state court, they were found guilty. So they appeal to the Supreme Court, that Connecticut's law violated the privacy of their customers, the Supreme Court ruled that: "Bill of Rights (Constitutional Amendment No. 8) contains all the specific protection ring covered with 'halo Hui', l Xi Yi by a specific security 'and into. "l Xi many specific overflow protection. or 'halo Hui" had a privacy boundaries. "" Privacy Bill of Rights itself is more ancient than that. "Therefore, the Bill of Rights, including the natural halo Hui privacy. The United States is case law law countries have followed the tradition of precedent, it is based on this, Justice Blackmun wrote in his verdict: "right to privacy, whether it is <<the Fourteenth Amendment>> in the concept of individual freedom or the behavior of state limit ... ... or <<Ninth Amendment>> in the provisions of the rights reserved to the people, are enough to cover the right of women to choose to terminate pregnancy. "
Constitutional right to privacy issues are resolved, how can the Supreme Court of Texas, according to Article XIV of the law prohibiting abortion unconstitutional? Judge has made the interpretation of the expansion, is defective nickname? Constitution fourteen what is the right procedure or entity the right to be the key to answering this question. We believe that Article XIV should contain substantive rights. people have a right to the type and content of rights are continuously enriched and developed, the limitations of constitutional provisions, can not meet the new manifestations of the claims, if not timely to expand the rights of content, is bound to re-amend the Constitution to meet the needs of new rights, but the constitution should be the seriousness and stability, not reckless and arbitrary changes to the Constitution the Supreme Court to keep under the premise of stability, rich content rights, the rights and alleviate the inherent limitations of the new friction, is fit and proper value of the option. So the Constitution of the United States has the constitution to suit the new era.

Roe v. Wade at a classic is that it makes the system of judicial review into a stable system, the Supreme Court has become a powerful rights. Reposted elsewhere in the Research Papers Download http://www . hi138.com