Author(s): Michael Harrington
Mentor(s): Doug Bennett, Kevan Jacobson
Institution SUU
The United States Constitution secures many unalienable Rights. In 1787, the Framers of the United States Constitution gathered to write the document, however, it was only in the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791 that the Constitution recognized fundamental, individual rights. As contemplated by both Amendment Nine and Amendment Ten, there remain fundamental unalienable Rights that have yet to be articulated. The Framers did not specify which of the three branches of government would have the duty of declaring which Rights are fundamental and which are not. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) established the principle of judicial review and further articulated the duty of the Supreme Court to decide what fundamental rights we have as individuals. Several questions could be suggested regarding this decision and its application. What steps are involved under the doctrine of Substantive Due Process in the identification of fundamental rights? What standards does the Supreme Court use to decide if a Right is fundamental? What types of Rights are considered fundamental? By analyzing Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) this paper endeavors to answer these questions by examining legal standards, precedence, political atmosphere, and social views.