Progressive Constitution

The activist nature of judges can sometime have negative effects, although most examples in history of Justices changing policy on an issue has usually been positive. Such as it was in the decision of Brown v. Board of Education, where non-separate equality was truly established. In other words, equality in general was established. This case is an example of activism correcting morally deficient or inefficient propositions. This decision overwrote the decision in the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case, where the Supreme Court decided to approve the decision to have “separate but equal” education facilities. The bold activism exhibited by the Justices helped the United States come one step closer to Martin Luther King’s dream of complete racial equality. This decision not only allowed many racial tensions to heal over time, but it set the stage for further change. If the Plessy v. Ferguson decision was not overturned, the country would be drastically different today and Martin Luther King’s movement may have not be successful.

Schenck v. United States was a case in which the rights of others were defined along with a redefining of freedom of speech. This decision ensured that even speech had its limits. This decision help to moderate freedom with logic. This decision ensured no one could scream “fire” in a crowded theater when no such fire existed. While this was not written into the Constitution, it helped protect the rights of others, thus another example of a positive coming from activism.

This decision also created the clear and danger scenario, which helped define whether a particular part of speech was allowed or not. Without this decision, mass panic and other violations caused by verbal actions would be protected, which would be an obvious negative.

Restraint in certain cases have lead to tensions and animosity throughout the nation. A key example of this relates to one of the cases mentioned earlier. This case accepted the separate but equal doctrine the country had been following in restaurants, bathrooms, and schools, just to name a few. The decision of the Supreme Court was to keep these separations, even though they obviously were not effective and sparked racial animosities even further. They had the power to prevent many years of racial tensions, but instead they went with restraint, and therefore fearing change. It is strange in nature to ponder that Justices, who most likely knew that separate but equal was not truly equal, would come to such a decision.