More handpicked essays just for you.
Constitutional interpretation methods essay
The case against judicial review
The case against judicial review
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Pros and Cons of Judicial Review
Judicial Review is the power given to Supreme court justices in which a
judge has the power to reason whether a law is unconstitutional or not. Chief
Justice John Marshall initiated the Supreme Court's right to translate the
Constitution in 1803 following the case of Marbury Vs. Madison, in which he
declared the Supreme Court as the sole interpreters of Constitutional law. This
is one of the sole purposes of the Supreme Court of the United States. Many
Historical thinkers would find some difficulty in imagining a government set up
to limit the power of itself,but others would argue that this form of government
best works for the people, and not against them. The treatment of the
Constitution by the Supreme Court as a "living" document that is able to be
translated differently over time for the good of the people has as many skeptics
as it does supporters. But, if we do not allow the Supreme Court to translate
the Constitution who then, should the people chose to do such an important job.
If we were to look back at the ideas and thoughts of some of the
greatest political thinkers of our time, we would find that individuals such as
Plato, Niccolo Machiavelli, and John Locke, would share extremely different
views as to whether or not Judicial review, and the Supreme Court as a whole,
would be successful in their ideal government situations.
One of the earliest political philosophers Plato, would find our
present day governmental setup of the Supreme Court to be the ideal group to
deal with the United States' situation. Plato felt that government should be run
by enlightened philosopher kings, that would rule for the good of the people,
and not themselves. We today see the Supreme Court as a collection of the most
"enlightened" thinkers of our day. They are chosen to make moral decisions about
laws made by others in our society, and decide whether or not the laws we make
are in the best interest of our nation as a whole. Plato knew that within any
political State their would be corruption, to stop the corruption Plato felt
that the philosopher kings would best rule because they would not indulge
themselves in a corrupt society. They only believed in the truth, and justice
that government is supposed to protect its people with.
Although Plato would not totally agree with the Democratic structure of
our government, I believe that he would chose for our society, a state that is
ruled by a similar group to that of our Supreme Court because, the members of
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.
... eye. While Toobin gave me great insight to the people who make up the Supreme Court, this book has become dated in some aspects. Stevens and Souter no longer are a part of the Supreme Court. As this book shows, each individual Justice makes up the personality of Supreme Court, which is now sightly different, without Justices Stevens and Souter. The nine justices in the book served together longer than any other group of Justices. Toobin describes the how each of the Justices got appointed to the Supreme court, including the failed nominations that ultimately brought each of the Justices to the Supreme court. The Supreme Court shapes our country in ways that no other branch of government can, because they are appointed for life. Ultimately, nominating a Supreme Court Justics, is one of the most far reaching and lasting way a president can shape our nation.
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.
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.
It is simple to be confused by the federal court judges and their decisions and how they go about them and how they are in their position. Personally, I always thought they were elected by the Supreme Court or someone or something higher than them. But I was very surprised to know that they were appointed (assigned a job or role to). This leaves the judges from having to go through a process of campaigning and running against others. Although by being unelected officials it has both pros and cons. Pros being, that they are trusted enough to handle cases that go to this point and being able to make a decision under the law to better the society. Cons being, if a federal court judge makes any misdemeanor or crime they have the ability to be impeached
Madison, declared the power of the courts to interpret the Constitution and affirmed the power of judicial review. The power of judicial review averted the judiciary branch of the inherent weakness and lack of equality in power among the three branches of government. The independence of the Supreme Court is paramount in protecting the civil liberties granted to citizens. The judicial power afforded by means of the doctrine of judicial review is not superior or above the other two branches of government. The Supreme Court’s duty is to nullify legislative acts contrary to the Constitution. Hamilton expounds the power of the courts in the Federalist Papers No. 78, “it only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both”, and judges should regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, (Hamilton, 2008). The Supreme Court’s duty is to nullify legislative acts contrary to the
...ntegrity of the American government and follows the Constitution which is what our nation is structured after. Had these Justices not made such remarkable decisions many others would suffer. It would be difficult to fathom a nation where women could not vote, races lived separately and immigrants were unable to create a life of their own. The fact that the Supreme Court made radical movements to spread equality throughout the nation and was able to excel and continue to institute this idea is what separates America from the rest of the world.
In William Hudson’s book, American Democracy in Peril, he writes about different “challenges” that play a vital role in shaping the future of the United States. One is the problem of the “imperial judiciary”. Hudson defines its as that the justice system in the United States has become so powerful that it is answering and deciding upon important policy questions, questions that probably should be answered by our democratic legislatures. Instead of having debates in which everyone’s voices are heard and are considered in final decision-making process, a democratic-like process; we have a single judge or a small group of judges making decisions that effect millions of citizens, an “undemocratic” process. Hudson personally believes the current state of judicialized politics is harming policy decisions in Americans. According to him, the judicial branch is the “least democratic branch”, and ...
I think that it is important to remember that the framers were fairly new at creating a government unlike any other government in the world and their main concern was freedom from government control. It appears that their biggest mistake was not applying the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the national government. It also becomes problematic in that two men, having different political beliefs and opinions, can interpret the same law in very different ways. Thus, the Supreme Court, established in 1789, which consists of the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices, is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law. In other words, when there is disagreement concerning constitutional law, the Supreme Court settles it. The power to nominate the Justices is vested in the President of the United States, and appointments are made with the advice and consent of the Senate. This in itself has become conflictual due to affiliations which could certainly sway decisions in favor of one particular political
The Supreme Court Justices involved in this case consisted of seven men to make the final decision and they are listed as followed:
In no other democracy does a court hold so much political power and in particular power over public policy decisions.
laws is to keep the bad things out from the old society out such as
The Honorable Jonathan Yates, former deputy general counsel for the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the U. S. House of Representatives, writes, “This lifetime term now enjoyed by justices not only contravenes the spirit of the Constitution, it counters the role intended for the court as a minor player in the equal judiciary branch of government. Term limits are needed to adjust the part of the court to the intent of the founding fathers” (Np). Judge Yates explains that the greatest powers of the Supreme Court did not originate from the Constitution or Congress, but from their own rulings (Np). The most prominent of which, was being Marbury v. Madison, in which the court granted itself judicial review, or the power to determine the constitutionality of legislation (Yates). Furthermore, the intended role of the court by the founding fathers was so small, that it did not have a home, or meet to hear any cases (Yates). An amendment to the Constitution removing the lifetime tenure of U.S. Supreme Court judges needs consideration by Congress. Lifetime tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court has led to four points that could not have been foreseen by the creators of the Constitution. The first problem resulting from the Supreme Court’s tenure policy is that judges’ are holding on to their seats, disregarding debilitating health issues. The second issue that has arisen from lifetime tenure is the use of strategic retirement by sitting judges to ensure a like-minded replacement. The third development resulting from lifetime tenure is the steady decrease in case decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. The fourth and final effect lifetime tenure has had on the Supreme Court is an increase in celebrity status of the judges, which has le...
Supreme Court- The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court in the judicial system. The Supreme Court consist of nine members, eight associate justices and one chief justice (XXXXX). The Supreme Court has the power to decide appeals on all federal cases and state cases that deal with federal law (XXXX). The Supreme Court does not have to hear an appeal like the circuits courts. A “writ of certiorari” can be filed to request the Supreme Court to hear an appeal (XXX). If Granted, the court will take briefs and conduct oral arguments and if not granted, the lower court’s decision stands (XXXXX). Only one percent of request are heard by the Supreme Court as they focus on cases that affect the country as a whole or when errors were discovered in a court case
After Dahl reviewed his research findings he concluded that the Court was only rarely willing to counter Congress’s preferences by striking legislation. According to Dahl, “the Supreme Court is inevitably a part of the dominant national alliance. As an element in the political leadership of the dominant alliance, the Court, of course supports the major policies of the alliance” (293). This explains to readers that although the Supreme Court does somewhat consider other bodies of government, overall, it attempts to act as its own body when making decisions.