Assess The Power Of Judicial Review Pros And Cons

Judicial review refers to the ability of the Court to interpret laws and executive actions in terms of constitutionality. If such law is found to be violative of the Constitution, or the actions taken are beyond the powers granted by the Constitution, it is liable to be struck down by the Court as void. Marbury v. Madison set precedent to the role and power of the judicial branch. Chief Justice John Marshall asserted that the Constitution was a superior law that cannot be changed by ordinary means. In addition, the acts of Congress, the executive, and the states reflect temporary view of what the law is and if these acts conflict with the fundamental law of the Constitution, then they are not entitled to enforcement and must be disregarded.

Madison, judicial review is the power of the judicial branch to declare statutes, actions, and bureaucratic agencies of the government at any level unconstitutional, and its main purpose is to check and balance the other two branches. This function is not purely a review of lower level courts by the Supreme Court. However, this power has been questioned due to its lack of direct coverage in the Constitution. Judicial review is also believed to be a conflict of interest, provided that Supreme Court Justice John Marshall ruled in favor of the courts. Judicial review is and has been controversial in the past because of how politically powerful it can be. The justices in the Supreme Court are appointed by the president and approved by Congress, which is argued to infringe on the “consent of the governed” clause in the preamble of the Constitution. None of the Supreme Court Justices are elected by the people, but they have the power to interpret the Constitution and whether or not laws are constitutional. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall confirmed that the Supreme Court has the power to practice judicial review when he stated that it is the job of the Supreme Court Justices to ascertain the meaning of the Constitution. Judicial review now deals with some of the most controversial topics today like abortion restrictions, same sex marriage bans, voter identification laws, and gun

It has many benefits and drawbacks. Some of the benefits are that it includes the system of checks and balances to the other government branches. Considering that politics commonly plays a role in almost all other government branches, it would make sense that it would do the same in the judicial system too. However, instead of being liberal or conservative, labels like “progressive interpretation” or “literalist” are being used. Judicial politics is formed by how judges view the law and how it should be interpreted. It supplies helpful insight. Thus, judicial activism is employed to allow a judge to use his or her personal judgment in cases where the law