According to you how dissent helped to reshape a law? Justify your answer with the recent example.
Answers
The U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause represents one of Congress's most important sources of legislative powers. Although the Commerce Clause's text neither explicitly mentions nor even alludes to public health, its interpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court has played a key role in either promoting or hindering efforts to achieve landmark legislation affecting the public's health. Most recently, the Commerce Clause has figured prominently in lawsuits challenging the validity of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).2,3 The constitutional litigation concerning health-care reform has brought increased attention to the complex nature of the Commerce Clause and its relationship to the public's health.
The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause is complex and evolving, and the Court's decisions have important implications for public health policy and practice. While Congress can use the Commerce Clause to justify some public health-related legislation, courts may invalidate such legislation as exceeding Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. This article provides historical context and describes recent developments in Supreme Court jurisprudence in the context of public health intervention. We then discuss how these decisions will affect ongoing judicial treatment of other public health endeavors.
The Right to Dissent is very essential to a democratic society. It helps to make a government accountable and governance efficient.
Dissent also helps to reshape the law of a country. An example, in India the dissent voices went against the Aadhar Card as mandatory for for bank accounts, education documents and schemes of government. Accordingly the Supreme Court of India ruled that Aadhar card is not mandatory for the above said things.
Similarly the dissent voices in India made the Supreme Court to declare the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right.