Research Paper on:
Court Debate: Constrained Versus Dynamic

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
courts are quite limited in their collective strength to modify legislature due to constitutional limitations, lack of judicial independence and insufficiency of implementation powers (Rosenberg, 1991). In contrast, the  dynamic point of view reflects the belief that "courts are free from electoral constraints and institutional arrangements that stymie change. Uniquely situated, courts have the capacity to act where  other institutions are politically unwilling or structurally unable to proceed" (Rosenberg, 1991, p. PG). II. DOCTOR-ASSISTED SUICIDE Within the past several years,  the Supreme Court has had to grapple with many controversial issues and decide accordingly the best way to appease both the law and the public; its dynamic decision about whether  to include doctor-assisted suicide within the boundaries of the law was monumental and unprecedented. The widely awaited decision allowing individual states to conclude for themselves whether to permit  doctor-assisted suicides represented a much needed bend in the ever stringent law that did not allow for an individual to dictate his or her own mortality. Chief Justice Rehnquist  said the court has long recognized the difference between "letting a patient die and making that patient die" (Blake, 1997, p. PG), and he was not willing to create an  entirely separate distinction for the law books. Instead, he opted to have each of the fifty states exercise their own discretion with regard to doctor-assisted suicide. This single,  historic and dynamic decision brought forth a great many opportunities for each state to recognize the importance of allowing people to die with dignity. The Supreme Court decision truly  opened doors that up until now have been locked tight. With Dr. Jack Kevorkian - the doctor who frequently assists terminally ill patients with their own suicide - at