Judicial Review Pros And Cons

684 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Judicial review and its importance

Judicial review in the United States had controversial origins because of the manner that it was established. However, it has become an important part of the system of government in our country. I believe it to be an important part of the balance between the different branches of government.
Since judges have served as arbitrators between conflicting people since the beginnings of society, the task of arbitrating between conflicting laws naturally fell to the courts as society became more advanced. This concept of arbitrating between laws is what came to be known as judicial review.
Judicial review is a concept where judges are asked to monitor or review governmental actions such as executive orders and laws passed by the legislature and there are multiple ways that judicial review can take effect. The first method of judicial review reviews the acts of governmental officials to determine whether they are acting under authority of law or exceeding the powers that have been granted to them by a statue. This method is used as a way to restrain officials acting outside of their prescribed limits. The second method of judicial review is policing the distribution of power between the states and the central government. This is used by …show more content…

In Federalist Paper No. 78, Hamilton says that in order for the Constitution to sufficiently protect the will of the people, the legislature has to be checked by the judiciary. He states that if it were up to Congress to decide the constitutionality of their own actions, it would lead to them substituting their will in place of the will of the people that elected them. He rationalizes giving this power of review to the judiciary by saying that it is the court’s duty to interpret the law, and that because the Constitution is the fundamental law of our country, the task of interpreting the Constitution should fall to the Supreme Court (Hamilton,

Show More
Related

  • Alexander Hamilton Rhetorical Analysis

    763 Words  | 2 Pages

    This essay was the sixth essay in support of the U.S Constitution and continued to provide undisputed reasoning for the ratification of the Constitution. The success of the previous five essays, allowed for the continues path of credibility. Within his writings, he remained consistent in his logic and structure, providing the base structure of his argument, providing historical facts, and then ties the two together. Hamilton additionally provides a quote at the end of Federalist Paper No 6, only referring to the author as “an Intelligent writer expresses himself on this subject” (qtd in Hamilton). The following quote summarizes Hamilton’s points and need for action, concluding that Hamilton has been able to “point out the Evil and suggests the Remedy.” This forces the reader to ignore the person that had been quoted and allows them to understand for themselves what they had read, concluding the same end result.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Federalist 78

    522 Words  | 2 Pages

    Federalist #78, written by Alexander Hamilton, is an essay to argue for the proposed federal courts, their powers, and means of appointing judges. In the essay, Hamilton claims that the judiciary will be the “least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution.” He says it will be the least , dangerous because the branch will be the least in abundant use. This implies that the other two branches will be used more. The executive branch not only “dispenses the honors”, but also enforce the laws over the entire country. The legislative branch holds the budget for the country and creates the laws in which the citizens must abide by. The judiciary, he says, will have no power over the executive and legislative branches. He also writes that it cannot move forward the society in wealth and in strength, and cannot resolve any active problems that the country is facing in any circumstances. According to Hamilton, the judiciary could be said to have “neither force nor will, but merely judgment,” and that it must depend on the executive branch, even to make their judgments more effectiv...

    Read More

  • Judicial Review: Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton

    1059 Words  | 3 Pages

    In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Judicial Branch is the “least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution" and that it is “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” since it has “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” [*] While it is true that Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers as propaganda to garner support for the Constitution by convincing New Yorkers that it would not take away their rights and liberties, it is also true that Article III of the Constitution was deliberately vague about the powers of the Judicial Branch to allow future generations to decide what exactly those powers should be. In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, established the Court’s power of judicial review. However, as Jill Lepore, Harvard professor of American History, argued, “This was such an astonishing thing to do that the Court didn’t declare another federal law unconstitutional for fifty-four years” after declaring the Judicial Act of 1789 unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison. [*Jill Lepore] Alexander Hamilton was incorrect in his assertion that the Judicial Branch is the least dangerous to political rights and the weakest of the three government branches because judicial review has made the Supreme Court more powerful than he had anticipated. From 1803 to today, the controversial practice of judicial activism in the Supreme Court has grown—as exemplified by the differing decisions in Minor v. Happersett and United States v. Virginia—which, in effect, has increased the power of the Supreme Court to boundaries beyond those that Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist 78.

    Read More

  • Alexander Hamilton's "Federalist no. 78"

    1100 Words  | 3 Pages

    In Federalist no. 78 Hamilton explains the powers and duties of the judiciary department as developed in Article III of the Constitution. Article III of the Constitution is very vague on the structure of the federal courts. Hamilton had to convince Americans that the federal courts would not run amok. He presented that the federal courts would not have unlimited power but that they would play a vital role in the constitutional government. Hamilton limited judiciary power by defining it as a text-bound interpretative power. (R.B Bernstein) This essay was intended to endorse as well as interpret the Constitution.

    Read More

  • Marbury v. Madison: Analyzing the Implications of Judicial Review

    1183 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Constitution confers judicial power on the Supreme Court and on inferior courts as created by Congress (Hames & Ekern, 2013). Judicial review is the power of the court to interpret the Constitution and invalidate conflicting laws.

    Read More

  • Executive Branch Checks And Balances

    872 Words  | 2 Pages

    Judicial Branches basic job is to determine if laws or acts are unconstitutional. Subsequently, the U.S. Judicial branch checks both the Executive and Legislative branch through checks and balances. The judicial branch has the ability to rule presidential actions unconstitutional and has its judges serve for life. The Judicial Branch can also declare and interpret laws written by the Legislative Branch, and signed by the Executive Branch, unconstitutional. One example of the Judicial Branch checking the Executive Branch was in Late 2014 when the Judicial Branch declared Obama’s immigration acts unconstitutional. This allows the Judicial Branch to check the Executive Branch by allowing laws passed by the Executive Branch to be unconstitutional and not be

    Read More

  • Power of the Branches

    1126 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Judiciary Branch offers checks and balances to the other branches of government. To both the Legislative and Executive branches, the Judicial Branch holds the power of judicial review. The Judicial branch can also declare existing laws as unconstitutional.

    Read More

  • The Second Challenge: Imperial Judiciary

    1279 Words  | 3 Pages

    People have always been concerned about our judicial system making massive decisions in an undemocratic manner and while there are parts of our nation’s history (Jost). There have been decisions that were dreadful for our nation, Dred Scott v. Sandford; but there are decisions that everyone can agree with in retrospect, Brown v. Board of Education. Also, there are decisions that still divide us as a nation, Bush v. Gore and Roe V. Wade. There are a lot of issues that come from our current judicial system; however, I understand that the problems that come from it are not going to come from any quick fix, and we may have to live with some of them. Looking at the history of the judicial branch of the United States Government, I believe it needs to be limited in its judicial review power, but have certain exceptions where necessary in some cases.

    Read More

  • Advantages And Disadvantages Of Judges

    1104 Words  | 3 Pages

    Whether a judge should be elected or appointed has been a topic for discussion since the creation of a judicial system. Depending on what side of the decision one may be on, there are some challenges that arise from each side. If a judge is elected, will he be judicious in his decision based on the law or based on his constituents? If the judge is appointed, will he be subject to the authority that appointed him, thereby slanting his decision to keep favor of the executive or legislator that appointed him? Mandatory retirement is also a question that brings about challenges. How old is too old? When does a judge become ineffective based on their age?

    Read More

  • Judiciary as the Most Powerful Branch of Government

    2619 Words  | 6 Pages

    The reason for much of this power is the principle of judicial review of the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government at both state and federal level against a written constitution and the power therefore to 'interpret' the constitution. The power of judicial review over the states is laid down in the supremacy clause of article III and the power of judicial review over the other two branches of the federal government is implied in the constitution and by several but by no means all of the founding fathers: "A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of thei... ... middle of paper ... ...

    Read More

  • Power Of Judicial Review: Miranda V. Arizona

    1014 Words  | 3 Pages

    One of the Judicial Branch’s many powers is the power of judicial review. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to decide whether or not the other branches of governments’ actions are constitutional or not. This power is very important because it is usually the last hope of justice for many cases. This also allows the court to overturn lower courts’ rulings. Cases like Miranda v. Arizona gave Miranda justice for having his rules as a citizen violated. The court evalutes whether any law was broken then makes their ruling. Also, the Weeks v. United States case had to be reviewed by the court because unlawful searches and siezures were conducted by officers. One of the most famous cases involving judicial review was the Plessey v. Ferguson

    Read More

  • Criminal Justice System and Law

    1239 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Supreme Court and Federal court have the same authority as in the Constitution. This system is called checks and balances which prevents the sole power of any one of the three branches. In addition, this power can be divided between the states and Federal government. The Federal government’s role in “domestic and foreign affairs and how they have grown” (Fe...

    Read More

  • Why Is The Judicial Branch The Least Dangerous

    666 Words  | 2 Pages

    Hamilton said that the judicial branch is the “least dangerous” branch of government; his reason for saying this is because this branch lacks the characteristics that the executive and legislative branches have that makes them dangerous. The judicial branch does not have weapons on its own like the executive and legislative branch have; furthermore, they do not have influence or control over the wealth of the society the way that the other two branches do. The judicial branch depends on the other two branches in order for power, because it lacks the power of its own.

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Judicial Review

    1015 Words  | 3 Pages

    as it does supporters. But, if we do not allow the Supreme Court to translate

    Read More

  • Essay On Judicial Review

    2166 Words  | 5 Pages

    Judicial review seeks to enforce and uphold constitutional doctrines which govern the UK’s uncodified constitution by scrutinising administrative action. One constitutional function of judicial review is to enforce the rule of law. It can be argued, in defining the rule of law as “negative value...designed to minimised the harm to freedom and dignity which the law may cause in its pursuit of its goals” Joseph Raz characterised judicial review. The principle of which states the executive is to be ruled by the law and subject to it.

    Read More

More about Judicial Review Pros And Cons

Open Document