7-9 pages APA STYLE ZERO PLAGIARISM  After reading the landmark decisions of  Plessy v. Ferguson,  163 U.S. 537 (1896) and  Miranda v. Arizona,  384 U.S. 436 (1966), discuss the following in a paper of 7-9 pages: What factors influenced each of these decisions?  Read the dissenting opinions as well. Explore to what extent political ideology influences constitutional law. To support your points, identify specific examples in the language of both the decisions and the dissents.  Examine the political climate when both cases were decided.  Look at what philosophical underpinnings may have influenced the thinking of the court of the respective eras of these cases. How did the courts in each era read the U.S. Constitution differently? Landmark decision (required reading) Politics and the U.S. Supreme Court  Constitutional law students will quickly come to recognize that the U.S. Constitution is a legal and political document. Too often individuals fail to realize that Constitutional law is influenced by the political climate and the politics of the justices on the Supreme Court. The appointment process for Supreme Court Judges is fraught with political and ideological battles that are played out during the U.S. Senate confirmation hearing. While most U.S. Presidents will argue that they seek to appoint a Supreme Court Judge who is free of any prior ethical challenges, someone with judicial temperament and balance, and who is free of any political ideology and prejudicial thoughts; in actuality, most appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court reflect the thinking of the sitting president's political philosophy.  Many would argue that each Supreme Court case is decided on the merits of the case, which in theory is correct; political ideology is an element of the court's deliberation process and a major factor in the final decision.  The  judicial review power , the authority of the Supreme Court to be the final interpreter of the Constitution that emerged during the leadership of Chief Justice John Marshall, could be viewed as an early indication of the political power and influence the Supreme Court would eventually have. Laws emerging from Supreme Court decisions have wide and long-lasting impact—sometimes more impacting than the executive and legislative branches of government.  Social Movements and the U.S. Supreme Court  It is interesting to note that throughout the history of the Supreme Court, social movements such as the following have not only split the United States population, they have also divided the judges on the Supreme Court: federalism states' rights slavery the rights of the federal government to regulate tariff and impose regulatory mandates the federal government's involvement in economic support civil rights  abortion gun control legislations  capital punishment separation of church and state  other ideological issues This divide is often reflected in the majority and dissenting opinions of the Supreme Court. The impact of social .

1. 7-9 pages
APA STYLE
ZERO PLAGIARISM
After reading the landmark decisions of
Plessy v. Ferguson,
163 U.S. 537 (1896) and
Miranda v. Arizona,
384 U.S. 436 (1966), discuss the following in a paper of 7-9
pages:
What factors influenced each of these decisions?
Read the dissenting opinions as well.
Explore to what extent political ideology influences
constitutional law.
To support your points, identify specific examples in the
language of both the decisions and the dissents.
Examine the political climate when both cases were decided.
Look at what philosophical underpinnings may have influenced
the thinking of the court of the respective eras of these cases.
How did the courts in each era read the U.S. Constitution
differently?
Landmark decision (required reading)
Politics and the U.S. Supreme Court
Constitutional law students will quickly come to recognize that
the U.S. Constitution is a legal and political document. Too
often individuals fail to realize that Constitutional law is
influenced by the political climate and the politics of the
justices on the Supreme Court. The appointment process for
Supreme Court Judges is fraught with political and ideological
battles that are played out during the U.S. Senate confirmation
hearing. While most U.S. Presidents will argue that they seek to
appoint a Supreme Court Judge who is free of any prior ethical
challenges, someone with judicial temperament and balance,

2. and who is free of any political ideology and prejudicial
thoughts; in actuality, most appointees to the U.S. Supreme
Court reflect the thinking of the sitting president's political
philosophy.
Many would argue that each Supreme Court case is decided on
the merits of the case, which in theory is correct; political
ideology is an element of the court's deliberation process and a
major factor in the final decision.
The
judicial review power
, the authority of the Supreme Court to be the final interpreter
of the Constitution that emerged during the leadership of Chief
Justice John Marshall, could be viewed as an early indication of
the political power and influence the Supreme Court would
eventually have. Laws emerging from Supreme Court decisions
have wide and long-lasting impact—sometimes more impacting
than the executive and legislative branches of government.
Social Movements and the U.S. Supreme Court
It is interesting to note that throughout the history of the
Supreme Court, social movements such as the following have
not only split the United States population, they have also
divided the judges on the Supreme Court:
federalism
states' rights
slavery
the rights of the federal government to regulate tariff and
impose regulatory mandates
the federal government's involvement in economic support
civil rights
abortion
gun control legislations
capital punishment
separation of church and state
other ideological issues
This divide is often reflected in the majority and dissenting
opinions of the Supreme Court. The impact of social movements

3. and the philosophical position of each justice on the Supreme
Court are often captured in their written opinions in the cases
they decide. It's important for those studying constitutional law
to not only read the majority opinion in a case but also the
dissenting position. Often times, the dissenting opinion becomes
the majority opinion when there is a personnel change on the
bench of the Supreme Court and the court reverses itself.
U.S. Supreme Court Eras
A
Supreme Court or judicial era
is best understood as an ideological or political position shared
by the majority of the justices on the Supreme Court that is
woven into all similar and even different court decisions.
During the early era of the court, there was very little stability.
Appointees to the Supreme Court in the early era did not view
the court with the level of respect that it now enjoys. Some
members resigned their seat on the Supreme Court to run for
elected office in their states; among these individuals was the
first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay.
It was not until about 1801 with the appointment of Chief
Justice John Marshall did the Supreme Court establish its
authority and control as outlined in Article III of the
Constitution. Chief Justice Marshall's federalist ideology
(strong central government) led to the court ruling in favor of
the central government and the Supreme Court as having the
final decisions in constitutional disputes. During the Marshall
era, the powers of Congress, the President, and the Supreme
Court grew—as noted in
Marbury v. Madison
(1803) and
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee
(1816), where the federalist ideology and the authority of the
U.S. Supreme Court is the dominant theme.
U.S. Supreme Court Eras
Post-Marshall Period

4. The Marshall period was followed by the Taney era. The
Supreme Court under Chief Justice Robert Taney could be
characterized by an ideological swing toward states' rights. This
court was most noted for the
Dred Scott v. Sandford
1856 decision. In this landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that slaves being property of their respective states
had no U.S. Constitutional protection. In essence, slavery is a
state issue that should not be reviewed by the federal
government or federal court system (Hall & Feldmeier, 2009).
In less than 10 years after the Dred Scott decision and the civil
war, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified,
abolishing slavery in the United States. The 13th Amendment
was followed by the 14th, which extended the concept of due
process and equal protection under the law to all citizens of the
United States. During the Reconstruction era, the 13th, 14th,
and 15th Amendments to the Constitution were carefully
scrutinized by the existent Supreme Court members because
many individuals were still troubled by the federal government
move to outlaw slavery.
Pre New Deal Court Era
In spite of the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments,
the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions shifted toward supporting
states' rights to limit the federal government from regulating
interstate commerce and having control over the local state
governments. Using the language of the 14th amendment, the
court supported the states' argument for segregation.
Influenced by the growing segregation movement in the
southern states, the decision in
Plessy v. Ferguson
(1896), the U.S. Supreme Court developed the doctrine of
separate but equal
,
which is one example of the U.S. Supreme Court's ideological
position during this era.

5. During the New Deal era, the U.S. Supreme Court witnessed an
ideological shift from states' rights to an embrace of federalist
agenda that led to the support of several federal legislations that
were challenged during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt
(Hall & Feldmeier, 2009).
Following was the Warren Court era, so named in recognition of
the work of Chief Justice Earl Warren, who was known for
many landmark decisions based on interpreting the U.S.
Constitution from a liberal perspective. The Warren Court
viewed the Constitution as a document designed to protect civil
and individual rights. Scholars agree that during the Warren era
much constitutional law was established (Hall & Feldmeier,
2009). The composition of the U.S. Supreme Court during the
Warren period was viewed to be an activist court. There
were four liberal-thinking justices on the bench during the
Warren era including the Chief Justices William Douglas, Hugo
Black, William Brennan, and later Thurgood Marshall (the first
African-American to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court). The
criminal justice procedure that is followed today in the United
States was shaped by the Warren Court. Landmark cases during
the Warren era involved expanding the rights and privileges of
American citizens. The famous Miranda rights warnings were
developed by the Warren Court,
Miranda v. Arizona
(1966), as well as the
exclusionary rule
(illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible in court) in the
landmark case of
Mapp v. Ohio
(1961).
The U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Warren Burger, the
Burger Court era, was a more centrist court that emphasized law
and order. Notwithstanding the moderate position of the Burger
Court of not wanting to overturn previous court cases, the
Burger Court decided one of the most controversial cases in
recent times:

6. Roe v. Wade
(1973). Under the privacy act, the court decided that women
are allowed to have an abortion within clearly defined limits.
During the Rehnquist era the Supreme Court shifted toward a
more conservative philosophy and sought to return some of the
privacy rights the Warren Court had articulated earlier. This
shift also reflected the political conservatism movement that
existed in the United States. The Roberts Court era to follow
was also dominated by many conservative judges with a strict
interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
Reference
Hall, D. E., & Feldmeier, J. P. (2009).
Constitutional values: Government powers and individual values
. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.