The best ways in which to interpret the Constitution as well as how much power the court has is something that has been argued throughout legislative history. In Calder v Bull, Justice Chase and Justice Iredell have differing opinions on the matter. Chase thought that the government has no authority to interfere with an individual’s rights and the general principles of law and reason forbid the legislature from interfering. He said, “The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact: as they are the foundation of legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it: The nature and ends of legislative power will limit the exercise of it.” (57). Justice Chase argues that …show more content…
This incorporates the idea that people band together for mutual help and safety, essentially to protect their own interest. By doing this, however, they in turn protect the interests and safety of society. Justice Iredell, on the other hand, believed that courts couldn’t ignore or strike down statutes based solely on “social compact” or natural law. He said, “The ideas of natural justice are regulated by no fixed standard: the ablest and the purest men have differed upon the subject; and all that the Court could properly say, in such an event, would be, that the Legislature had passed an act which, in the opinion of the judges, was inconsistent with the abstract principles of natural justice.” (56). He asserted the ability of the Supreme Court to review legislative acts, but on the basis of something more than the principles of “natural justice.” According to Iredell’s view, any act of the legislature that violates the constitution is …show more content…
I think that Corwin was correct because we can see both sides of the debate in several other cases in history, in which the Chasian view was not the majority, but ended up being a stronger argument if we were to look back in time from the present day. It would be interesting to use the principles argued in Calder v Bull as a lens in regards to the cases of Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v Ferguson, and Lochner v New York. In all these cases, the dissenting opinions, which were in line with Chase’s view, are the way in which courts are more likely to act today. The majority opinions however, made sure that the statutes did not violate the constitution, but did not argue whether those legislations were unreasonably denying citizens their health, safety, or happiness. We can say, taking the previous concepts into account, that the general purpose of the American Constitution is shortsighted the moment we lose the focus of interpreting it as a “social compact”. The questionable
The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.
When the rights of the American citizen are on the line than the judiciary should utilize the powers invested in them to protect and enforce what is constitutional. However, in times of controversy, where personal preference or aspects of religious or personal nature are at hand, the judiciary should exercise their power with finesse, thereby acting out judicial restraint. An example of such is in the case of Engel v. Vitale where Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court directing the School District’s principal to read a prayer at the commencement of each school day. In cases that do not regard whether an action is constitutional or not, the judiciary should suppress their power of judicial review.
John Marshall, Supreme Court Justice, created legal precedence in the historical case, Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Throughout history he is portrayed as the fountainhead of judicial review. Marshall asserted the right of the judicial branch of government to void legislation it deemed unconstitutional, (Lemieux, 2003). In this essay, I will describe the factual circumstances and the Supreme Court holdings explaining the reasoning behind Chief Justice Marshall’s conclusions in the case, Marbury v. Madison. Furthermore, I will evaluate whether the doctrine of judicial review is consistent with the Constitution and analysis the positive effects of the doctrine in American politics.
In John Leo’s “The Beauty of Argument”, Leo discusses how discussion and debate has changed drastically over time.
By giving the courts the power to overrule laws that are unconstitutional and allowing them to exercise Judicial Review, they are better equipped at protecting the civil liberties and human rights of society as a whole. Different political parties often have different interpretations of what laws should be in effect, but these laws do not always serve society as holistically as needed. In Federalist 78, Hamilton explains this by stating, “The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as 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” (The Federalist No. 78). While the Judicial branch of government may not be the most powerful, it is a very important component of our government that regulates the way that society functions and even how our needs are met. Without, we would be at risk of tyranny and societal destruction from government
According to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78: “This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community(Hamilton, Page 8).” The influence of public opinion legislation may be affected by the social majority and violate the constitution, at the same time, this kind of undesirable tendency may cause unfair or biased act violations of human rights. So the judge independence is an important consideration to protect society from the tyranny of the majority of people of this kind of undesirable tendency of incidental. A judge determined not only can reduce the harm of such bill has passed, and can contain the legislature
Earl Rochester’s argument is to make drinking a privilege to say, with a drinking license. This will require a “drinker’s ed class,” because it's just like driver’s ed, you have to read a manual and then take a written test what will be next a drinking portion to see if you can handle this “privilege.” I strongly disagree with Mr. Rochester not because I believe in underage drinking or alcoholism but because of the mere fact that this drinking license will not help since no matter what obstacles adolescents and alcoholics will find a way to get their hands on alcohol.
There are two major ways that the Constitution is interpreted. One of which is called the “Strict Constitution” of national law, an example of this would be the “Dred Scott decision. The other way is the federalist position, where the Constitution grants broad power to the federal government. Two great examples of this type of interpretation were Chief Justices John Marshall and Earl Warren.
These passages present a discussion about arguments concerning the Supreme Court's power. This is an important debate for America since the Supreme Court can alter the principles that by which we live by. The two positions argue whether or not the judiciary has too much power. Both viewpoints have valid claims warranting consideration; for example, evidence indicates that the judiciary has little power to implement their decisions. In contrast, opposing evidence suggests that despite this point, they still practice judicial review. While both sides of the issue have valid points, the claim that the judiciary has too much power is the strongest position, the position supported by a preponderance of the evidence cited in the passages. The most convincing and forceful reasons in support of this position are that
“Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe”( Douglass). This famous quote epitomizes the philosophies of Frederick Douglass, in which he wanted everyone to be treated with dignity; if everyone was not treated with equality, no one person or property would be safe harm. His experience as a house slave, field slave and ship builder gave him the knowledge to develop into a persuasive speaker and abolitionist. In his narrative, he makes key arguments to white abolitionist and Christians on why slavery should be abolished. The key arguments that Frederick Douglass tries to vindicate are that slavery denies slaves of their identity, slavery is also detrimental for the slave owner, and slavery is ungodly.
The court determines whether on not an action is constitutional or not through the process of judicial review. Not only do they keep the Legislative and Executive branch in line, they keep other courts in line. Many and very few cases require the Supreme Court to review and overturn decision. Example are the Miranda v. Arizona cases where the police was in the wrong by violating Miranda’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment therefore ruling in Miranda’s favor. Also the Weeks v. United States case was an example of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment being violated was again ruling in the defendent’s favour. Finally, the Plessey v. Furguson case was a little different really displaying the courts power to interpret laws and ruling in the prosecuter’s favour. The Judicial Branch is certainly not the weakest branch and has a more important role than many people
Constitutional interpretation is the principle job of the Judicial branch, and citizens have a variety of earnest beliefs based off of the document as well. There were several incidents where Hennessey’s own opinions were present in his writing. While discussing the Second Amendment, he states, “ So, if “people” have the right to bear arms, government has the power to impose fair qualifications on that right” (p.95). I don’t have to disagree with this assertion to know that readers deserve to learn from unbiased materials. This is a fierce issue in our government, and many people contend that Second Amendment rights are absolute and should not be infringed upon. Other times, Hennessy presents both sides of an issue like whether the Constitution is a “living document” that changes as time passes, or what Textualists believe, which is that the constitution should be accepted exactly as it is written. The value of reading the
views as to whether or not Judicial review, and the Supreme Court as a whole,
The Constitution or “the supreme law of the land”, as stated in article six in the constitution is very complex. It is complex not only in its actual text full of ambiguities and vagueness, but it becomes more complex when used in practice and interpreted. Constitutional interpretation is significant because it is what decides what the constitution actually means. Constitutional interpretation is a guide judges use to find the legal meaning of the constitution. The interpretation of the constitution and amendments can make a big impact on outcomes. In our government and Judiciary, we see commonly see originalism being used to interpret the constitution and amendments, but there
The term ‘judicial activism’ means a court decision suspected of being built or based on individual, political or private reflections instead of the actual law. In America, judicial activism is considered either as conventional or as plentiful. The original retro of American legitimate antiquity was categorized by traditional justice involvement where the Central Supreme Law court was reluctant to allow the conditions or the assembly to permit lawmaking that would control social or financial businesses. Judges should not read between the lines or add their own experiences when it comes to determining what the verdict will be. The United States Constitution is direct, with plainly written sentences and all judges should follow those guidelines.