Sophie Byrne
John Ward
POLI 100
29 March 2023
Two Week Essay Assignment Week 10 & 11
In "The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review," published in the Yale Law Journal, Jeremy Waldron argues against the concept of judicial review, which is a concept allowing courts to strike down laws that are deemed unconstitutional. Waldron argues that this concept undermines democracy and should be replaced by a system of parliamentary sovereignty; where the legislative branch holds the power to determine the final outcome when interpreting the constitution.
Waldron introduces his arguments by suggesting that judicial review has become an accepted part of modern constitutional theory, but overall it is fundamentally undemocratic because it takes decision-making power away from elected officials, by giving it to unelected judges. This, he says, is a violation of the principle of popular sovereignty, which states that the people should have the final say in how they are governed. Waldron infers that
…show more content…
Brettschneider argues that judicial review can often enhance democracy by protecting the rights of minorities and ensuring that the majority does not overstep its bounds. He notes that democracy is not just about majority rule, but also about protecting the rights of individuals and minorities. Judicial review, he says, can help to ensure that these rights are not violated by the majority, and can help to prevent the tyranny of the majority that was feared by many of the framers of the US Constitution. Brettschneider also argues that judicial review can be seen as an extension of the principle of popular sovereignty, since it allows the people to hold their elected officials accountable by giving them the power to strike down laws that are deemed
In order to uphold the constitution, the Supreme Court must always aim to balance power among the branches of government and not overstep boundaries in exercising its own power. For this reason, the debate over handling political questions in the courtroom
This statement from the passage shows that the Supreme Court is depended on to choose what’s right and what’s wrong for us. Secondly, I believe that the Supreme Court is given too much power because the Judicial branch, which includes the Supreme Court, is envisioned as superior than the others. In
A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism” (Basler,
Most Americans view the Constitution as a sacred document that created the world’s greatest democracy but, in actuality, the American Constitution has many highly undemocratic aspects that prove this judgement to be mistaken. This is brought to light in Dahl’s analysis of the American Constitution.
The articles written by Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer both contribute valid insight on how the Constitution should be interpreted. They, however, end up taking conflicting views on whether to adopt what is known as a living constitution or to bind the judiciary by the original meaning of the document. Throughout their works, the authors mention the importance of objectivity, judicial restraint and the historical context in which the Constitution was written under and whether or not it should apply to the United States today. Scalia argues in favor of the originalist approach, stating that he supports neither a strict nor a loose interpretation of the Constitution, but rather, a reasonable interpretation. Breyer sides with the cosequentialist ideals, claiming that active participation in collective power is paramount when it comes to evaluating the Constitution's place in American law.
It can do this by giving the us citizens the opportunity to voice their opinion to political officials through email, phone, fax and letter even. A full on democracy tries to make everything set and stone. With a representative, we as people, even in the minority, can still have the power to influence the representative to have our desires heard, which is fairly significant. 51% majority rule can absolutely be detrimental to someone of the lowest minority. With majority rule there can be power over the lowest class.
What sets the judicial branch apart from the others is the inability to execute the laws and carry out their own decisions made in the high court. Just as it is the executives place to enforce the laws and the legislation to construct laws, it is the responsibility of the courts to determine if the Constitution has been
Unable to execute and mask violence under the forms of the Constitution. III. Enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interests both to the public and right to the citizens. • Madison added to that, “It is great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and recommended to adoption of mankind.” • Definition of democracy according to Madison,” A society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.”
Ideology and the role of the judiciary are frequently in tension. In Six Great Inventions in the Art of the Government, Samuel Finer praises Judicial Review as one of the practices that established and shaped the modern state. He sees the Supreme Court’s ability to interpret a case to protect American citizens as foundation of an effective government. Nonetheless, Judicial Review is more applicable as a doctrine than as an unchanging invention. Theodore Lowi’s piece Bend Sinister: How the Constitution Saved the Republic and Lost Itself would inherently disagree with Finer.
He emphasizes the Constitution's supremacy as the people's law, granting them the authority to control and modify the government. Webster concludes that the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, should resolve constitutional disputes, strengthening a centralized government for national
Throughout this paper, this material will be further explained and examined through several different ideas and articles. The first idea that will be discussed, regarding the principles presented above, can be demonstrated through the article, The Right of “Free Suffrage” (1776). This article
The Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics video titled “Key Constitutional Concepts” explores the history of the creation of the United States Constitution in addition to key concepts crucial to the document. Two central themes explored in the video include the protection of personal rights and importance of checks and balances. The video strives to explain these concepts through Supreme Court cases Gideon v. Wainwright and Youngstown v. Sawyer. To begin, the video retraces the steps leading up to the Constitutional Convention in Virginia in 1787. It opens by explaining the conflict that led to the Revolutionary War and the fragility of the new nation.
I have heard of the Marbury v. Madison case, when I was in my high school civil and criminal rights class. Giving the court the power to make a law unconstitutional, is their power of checks and balances on the legislative branch. Conversely, the courts have the power to also veto the bill, which makes it much harder for it to pass. For the bill to still pass if vetoed, Congress must have a two-thirds vote from all members. In the Marbury v. Madison case it gave the judicial branch the power of judicial review.
In the United States, people always talk about freedom and equality. Especially they want elections could be more democratic. In American Democracy in Peril, Hudson’s main argument regarding chapter five “Election Without the People’s Voice,” is if elections want to be democratic, they must meet three essential criteria, which are to provide equal representation of all citizens, to be mechanisms for deliberation about public policy issues, and to control what government does. Unfortunately, those points that Hudson mentions are what American elections do not have. American elections do not provide equal representation to everyone in the country.
The rights of the people may be enumerated in peace time and withdrawn in times of conflict, providing a greater degree of governmental control over the country. This is all a result of the uncodified constitution, and by extension, parliamentary sovereignty. However, the lack of a codified constitution and the resulting dearth of constitutional supremacy have problems of their own. Albert Dicey’s writings on parliamentary sovereignty encapsulate some of the greatest issues with the uncodified nature of the constitution.