According judges that their philosophy differs from

According to the Fourth Amendment, in the U.S. Constitution, it ensures the citizens of the United States “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The advocates of restraint and activism are the judges that their philosophy differs from strict constructionists to loose constructionists. Because most of the advocates of restraints tend to be Republicans or conservatives, they believe there is a limit on privacy rights. And because the advocates of judicial activism tend to be Democrats or liberals, most of them believe that the right to privacy can be expanded.

            According to the judicial advocates of restraint the right to privacy has a limit. Judicial restraint is in favor of courts to elucidate the law. The advocates of restraints believe that courts should not reinterpret the Constitution of the United States. They believe that the judges should do exactly as the Constitution says and as the farmers intended. Even though these advocates are strict constructionists and believe that there is no such thing as the right to privacy, they do as the Constitution intended that is the only right to privacy the American people have are the ones that are strictly outlined in the U.S. constitution.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

            The judicial advocates of activism believe that the right of privacy was what the farmers intended to have. The judicial advocates of activism believe that courts should be able to rewrite laws that weren’t good anymore and to be able to create new laws. Most of these judges tend to be liberals. They believe that the Constitution should be required to grow and to adjust to modern circumstances. These advocates also tend to be loose constructionism that believe that courts should apply the Constitution to a certain extent and should not limit themselves to the Constitution.