Should we let the Supreme Court Create Law?
In 1914 the United States Supreme Court created a rule in the Weeks vs the United States case that dealt with Fourth Amendment violations in search and seizure. In 1949 in the Wolf v Colorado ruling the United States Supreme Court held that the 1914 ruling did not apply to the states. However, many states did adopt the rule, or something similar to it, into their own proceedings. In 1961 the Supreme Court, in Mapp v Ohio the United States Supreme Court extended the protections of the 1914 ruling to all the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Other important decisions such as the Miranda v Arizona and Roper v Simmons cases have followed a similar twisted path to becoming a national ruling on criminal case law. Of course, none of the provisions in these rulings are actually found in the Constitution. The whole process seems to some to be overly complicated and difficult to follow.
Provide your answer to the following question
- Or, should we allow the Supreme Court to rule an action as unconstitutional and then be required to send the case back to the federal or state legislatures and let them create law that deals with it?
In your response, cite at least one other United States Supreme Court ruling and describe how it could have been dealt with differently to include allowing legislatures to handle the creation of the law.