In the United States of America, the Constitution has always been a document that supports and protects the rights of individual citizens. However, the country's Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution in 1776 using broad, general terms, which has led to debates and disagreements regarding whether the Constitution was written to be interpreted by Supreme Court justices in a literal and narrow sense, or if it was intended to evolve and be interpreted taking into account the progress and change of society. The belief that judges should have no say in the implications of the Constitution is titled strict constitutionalism or judicial restraint. The philosophy titled living constitutionalism, or judicial activism, states that the Constitution was written to evolve over time and that Supreme Court justices have the right to decide what rights fall under the Constitution, although the rights are not specifically stated in the document. The Living Constitutionalism view believes in the power of judicial review, which means that judges have the right to interpret the law. It has been said that this school of thought is anti-democratic because judges are not elected by the people, but can decide what is or is not constitutional, thus hindering the government's intentions. However, allowing Supreme Court justices to apply the power of judicial review is not only right, but necessary for an advancing society, as well as enabling freedom. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay To understand the practice and applications of judicial review, it is critical to know how the Supreme Court system works. Supreme Court justices are appointed by the current president of the United States when a seat needs to be filled. Once the potential judge is elected by the President, the judges must pass a background check by the Senate Judiciary Committee, in order to ensure that they have a clear mentality and background. Finally, the appointed judge goes to the full Senate to be approved. After passing these steps, justice serves for life. Although Supreme Court justices are not directly chosen by the people, they are chosen by the Presidents of the United States and supervised by Senators, who are elected by the citizens. It is important to realize that the United States is not a democracy, as this trial demonstrates, but a federal republic. Although judicial review may be considered undemocratic because judges are not directly elected by the people, it does not necessarily go against the government of a federal republic. In the United States, granting judges the power of judicial review has proven countless times to be the right solution to Supreme Court cases. After the power of judicial review was first granted in 1801 by Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court was able to interpret the Constitution to apply it to modern issues. A famous court case, Nixon v. United States, 1974, is an example of how the Judicial Review allowed the Supreme Court to make a decision that was right for both the citizens and the government of the United States. In President Nixon v. United States of America, the central question raised was whether it was constitutional for the president to hide certain personal items because of his executive privilege; or, in simpler terms, whether the President is above the law. Thanks to the power of judicial review of the Supreme Court judges,the court was able to use the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, and although the Constitution does not include a specific reference to the president being above the law, the Supreme Court justices ruled that it was unconstitutional that the President of the United States used his executive privilege to hide things like voice recordings that could constitute evidence in criminal courts. This ruling is very important for the United States because it established a precedent, or jurisprudence, that the president cannot ignore the law of the land without consequences. Thanks to the power of judicial review, judges are able to interpret the Constitution to ensure that sentences are fair to all parties involved. In the Supreme Court, the power of judicial review is necessary because it allows the United States of America the ability to change and recognize new human rights issues and violations. In 1776, when the Constitution was written, issues such as racial segregation were not seen as “wrong” or “unjust,” simply because the ideology of the time did not view African Americans as people, but as property. Less than two hundred years later, in 1954, the Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education demonstrated that times had changed, because the case revolved around the constitutionality of racial segregation. The court's ruling reversed the precedence established by Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, who advocated a “separate but equal” mentality. Due to the evolving mentality of society, the current issues are issues that were never even considered when the Constitution was written. The Fourteenth Amendment, used by the Court in its reasoning, says nothing specifically about racial segregation. However, thanks to the judicial review power of judges, the Supreme Court stopped a human rights violation at the federal level. Without judicial review and living constitutionalism, the United States Constitution would not endure due to its lack of flexibility, or society would be unable to recognize and enforce human rights domestically. The mindset and applications of Judicial Review, or Judicial Activism, allow citizens of the United States individual freedoms. Both Griswold v. Connecticut Loving v. Virginia concerned couples who had been denied basic freedoms by state governments. In the case Griswold v. Connecticut, in 1965, a couple was denied the right to use contraceptives by the state of Connecticut. In the Supreme Court, due to judicial review and living constitutionalism, it has been ruled that couples should have the right to privacy within their homes, thus allowing contraceptives. The Constitution says nothing directly about privacy, but without the power of judicial activism, Connecticut would continue to ban the use of contraceptives, which denies basic freedoms and rights. In the case of Loving v. Virginia, in 1967, the constitutional issue of interracial marriage was brought forward. Once again, attributed to the power of judicial review, interracial marriage was determined to be constitutional due to the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it was concluded that not allowing interracial marriage is contrary to people's constitutional liberties. Supporters of judicial restraint often point out that judicial review can contravene the intentions of elected officials, although, interestingly enough, both in Loving v. Virginia that Griswold v. Connecticut, elected officials were the reason for.."