Quiz 5 :
Commerce clause states that congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nation and other states. Interstate Commerce states that congress can regulate any activity which has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. Here in this case, argument of federal government will prevail as they were right that backyard farming will lead affect the interstate market for marijuana. As they grow marijuana backyard farming will lead to lower sale of marijuana. They will purchase less in the open market of interstate commerce.
Article III of the constitution leads to the creation of the constitution and allows the congress to create lower courts. It is the constitution from where the Supreme Court and other courts derive the strength to adjudicate cases and for judicial review. A judge should interpret the constitution with making emphasis on the actual meaning of the articles. A judge should not make decisions and take judicial review by relying upon the statutes that are created by the congress. Rather, it is the responsibility of a judge to decide cases which are in accordance with the constitution. A judge of the Supreme Court may also nullify acts that are against the constitution in order to uphold the principles of the constitution. Judicial Review: It has been argued that the power of judicial review by the judges should be exercised with restraint which is true to certain extent, but the interpretation of the statute formulated should be in accordance with the law. The lawmakers sometimes might formulate a law that aims at fulfilling the wishes of the public and in the process, they might ignore the rights of other people that are guaranteed in the constitution. At this time, the role of judge becomes all the more prominent. A judge should make the lawmakers and the public aware that the statute formulated is violating the rights of other people that are guaranteed by constitution. Thus, the role a judge should be to interpret various statute as per the principles laid down in the constitution as they possess true knowledge of the constitution and could interpret the principles of the constitution in much potential way as compared to the general lawmakers. Judicial activism: It involves the process, courts take active steps in deciding various issues which are of importance on the basis of constitutional principles. Judicial restraint on the other hand makes the courts to allow the legislature to make laws and to take steps only when the statute formulated unquestionably violates the principles as laid down in the constitution. In the period between 1950s and 1970s, the Supreme Court took active steps in deciding the issues of social importance as per the principles of the constitution. But of lately the courts generally exercise judicial restraint. It would be unfair and would also amount to injustice to believe in either judicial activism or judicial restraint process as both might be necessary in various situations and as per case to case basis. There might be situations wherein a statute might explicitly violate the principles of the constitution and there might be cases where the creation of the statute would be required. Thus, both judicial activism and judicial restraint are required from time to time by the courts in order to deliver justice in the actual form. Both the judicial activism and judicial restraint are justifying and correct in their own ways. But to my personal belief, judicial activism is appropriate since the verdict would be resulted with the actual facts and ensures the protection of all the rights of the people as per the constitutional norms.
Intermediate: Intermediate scrutiny-classifications based on sex must meet a tougher test than those resulting from economic and social regulation. Such laws must significantly relate to significant government objectives. Courts have more and more invalidate government sex classifications as societal concern with masculinity equality has grown. Therefore, under the fourteen amendment, intermediate will be applied. Hence, option "B" is correct. Strict Scrutiny- The classifications are based on discrimination against ethnic minorities or races and these are almost never upheld. Government action that deliberately discriminates on basis of ethnicity is presumed invalid. Hence, option "A", "C", and "D" are incorrect to the given statement.