Final answer:
The Court should use judicial restraint when the constitutionality of a law is not clearly at issue, upholding the legislature's and executive's decisions unless a law is unmistakably unconstitutional. This aligns with a perspective that respects democratic principles and maintains adherence to established legal precedents and the original intent of the Constitution's framers.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Court should use judicial restraint and defer to the judgment of elected officials when the constitutionality of a law is not clearly in question. Judges who practice judicial restraint believe in upholding the decisions made by the legislative and executive branches unless a law is obviously unconstitutional. This perspective stems from the belief that courts, especially unelected federal judges, are the least democratic institutions and thus, should avoid encroaching on politics or policy making. Judges who follow this philosophy tend to adhere to precedent and respect the principle of stare decisis. They may also align with strict constructionism, interpreting the Constitution according to what they consider was the original intent of the framers during the time it was written.
On the other hand, judicial activism represents the willingness of judges to step beyond established precedents and to expand personal liberties by striking down laws and actions they view as infringing on rights. The interplay between these judicial philosophies indicates that judicial restraint is appropriately employed when the role of the judiciary is to interpret law conservatively while respecting the decisions and laws of the more directly democratic branches of government.