ipl-logo

Dbq Essay On The Judicial Branch

467 Words2 Pages

The argument/famous Supreme Court case Madison vs. Marbury asked us the question should the Judicial Branch be able to declare laws unconstitutional. I think the Judicial Branch should be able to declare a law unconstitutional. I believe this because the judicial branch is very small, they have no other checks on any other branch, and they don’t receive any money.
The Judicial Branch is so small. It doesn’t have as many parts to it as the Executive and Legislative Branches. They also don’t do as much as the other branches, because while the Legislative Branch creates Laws and the Executive Branch controls most of the federal organizations the Judicial Branch just hears different cases that appeal through the lower courts. One Example of this is in document B where is says,” The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the …show more content…

This means that they can’t really be bribed. Document B talks about this when it says, “The judiciary, on contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society;” This is saying that the Judicial Branch has no control over the money or power of the government. For this reason there is really no way for the Judicial Branch to be bribed. This makes their decisions based actually on what they think and not what other people want them to think.
As stated earlier I believe that the Judicial Branch should have the right to decide if a law is constitutional or not. The court case of Marbury vs. Madison is important because it brought up this point. I believe this is true because the judicial branch is very small, they have no other checks on any other branch, and they don’t receive any money. Because they are the branch to decide if something is lawful or not they are the perfect branch to make the decision on whether something is constitutional or

Show More
Related
63 Words | 1 Pages

There was discussion of judicial review in Federalist No. 78, written by Alexander Hamilton, which explained that the federal courts would have the power of judicial review. Hamilton stated that under the Constitution, the federal judiciary would have the power to declare laws unconstitutional. He also stated that this was appropriate because it would protect the people against abuse of power by Congress.

Read More
143 Words | 1 Pages

IV. Addressing the opposition A. Argument 1 The Plaintiff has argued that this regulation is in best interest for the public and provides security for the society as a whole. They want the regulation to be considered Constitutional because it was voted on by the majority and therefore, it is in the best interest of the community and should therefore be enacted. This argument does not speak to the constitutional issue of the case. The Supreme Court’s main objective is to protect individuals and minorities from oppressive government.

Read More
310 Words | 2 Pages

The Legislative branch and the Executive branch are given their own individual jobs. They may be able to do what they are given, but if they do something illegal, the judicial branch comes in. This is seen in document 3, it demonstrates checks and balances. The legislative lions and Executive Eagles show how the

Read More
1227 Words | 5 Pages

The Constitution is frequently thought to be the preeminent law of the United States that all laws made after it ought to maintain. Hamilton expressed that "the Constitution should be the standard of development for the laws, and that wherever there is an obvious restriction, the laws should offer place to the Constitution" (Document E). In any case, there have been times in United States history where a law has been passed that collides with the Constitution. On the off chance that the Constitution truly is the preeminent law of the United States, than any unlawful law that is passed ought to be toppled. In the event that the Supreme Court did not have the force of legal audit, than the privileges of the Constitution would gradually be taken away by new laws that contention with the Constitution.

Read More
392 Words | 2 Pages

The Constitution may be a mess and need amendments, but it covers our basic rights and freedoms. There are many clauses within it that assure these rights will be kept and not changed. In one one of the clauses it states that no bill shall be passed that would override

Read More
557 Words | 3 Pages

The Judicial Branch is the judge of any laws that the President or Congress passes, they decide if the law goes along with the Constitution. Without this system our government would fall into a complete disaster and most likely become a dictatorship. Given these points, it is obvious that the power in our government needs to be

Read More
1278 Words | 6 Pages

Without judges that protect the constitution, the travel ban might have still been in effect which would allow President Trump as well as other presidents to sign orders at will without living up to the constitution in full extent. In the words of Goldsmith, “the courts...remain supreme” (Goldsmith, 188). Additionally, agencies within the executive can be a check on the president. For example, when there were numerous reports that came out about Russia meddling in the election to help President Trump win, the Justice Department hired an outside special investigator, Robert Mueller, to find the underlying cause of the situation.

Read More
547 Words | 3 Pages

Although a plethora of critics mention that the judicial branch is considered the weakest out of the three branches, none of the branches are truly weak. The judicial branch still plays a prevalent role in checking and balancing the other two branches. The purpose of judicial review is mainly to imply judicial supremacy in interpreting different various types of laws. In Federalist 78 by Alexander Hamilton, he decreed that judicial courts must “respect the right of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power (Woll 359).” Judicial courts must have complete independence of the courts of justice and be able to deem Congressional laws as unconstitutional.

Read More
888 Words | 4 Pages

Judicial Review is the principle that the Judicial Branch has the right to review the constitutionality of the legislative and executive branch. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” (Marbury vs. Madison, 1803) Chief Justice at the time, John Marshall, said this when expressing the court's opinion in the Marbury vs. Madison case. The use of “duty” is important because it shows an obligation and responsibility for the Judicial Branch to have Judicial Review.

Read More
1567 Words | 7 Pages

In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton lays out his vision for how the Supreme Court of the United States should function. In it, he assures that one of the key roles of the Supreme Court will be to check the constitutionality of congressional legislation in order to protect the individual rights of the people. However, in his opinion for the Marbury v. Madison case in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall interprets the power of judicial review from Article III of the constitution, in a way in which the court becomes a powerful branch of government. With Marshall’s interpretation, the court is able to “strike down” legislation by the command of the people which is embedded in the Constitution (O’Brien 173). Hamilton intended for the court to

Read More
671 Words | 3 Pages

The Supreme Court only has power when they strike down a law as unconstitutional and even then their power to protect minorities is limited. When the Court does not declare something unconstitutional they are upholding legislation, effectively agreeing with the other two branches. When the Court hears a case and

Read More
146 Words | 1 Pages

I think the executive and legislative branches, as well as the judiciary, should possess the power to declare what the Constitution means because it is a way to balance power, instead of one branch having the most power and the other having the least amount of power. Alexander Hamilton’s quote states, “A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as a fundamental law. It therefore belonged to them to ascertain its meaning.” When relaying to this quote, the constitution is important, which needs to be advised by all branches instead one one because it can be a mundane law. Also, having one branch gaining all the power and rights will anger citizens, such as the judicial review.

Read More
478 Words | 2 Pages

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the time was Chief Justice John Marshall, and he declared that this whole process of delivering commissions for judges, the Judiciary Act, was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court declared this act illegal, because it gave the Supreme Court a power that they were forbidden to have. This is when the first law was declared unconstitutional and judicial review came into

Read More
1536 Words | 7 Pages

The Supreme Court has a power known as “judicial review,” which, while the exact powers are not explicitly expressed in the constitution, gives the supreme court the ability to interpret the Constitution and laws to see if they follow the Constitution, assuring the protection of individuals’ civil liberties (The Court and Constitutional Interpretation, 2017). This allows for the Constitution to be a “living” document, where the laws and rights are open to interpretation to best suit the needs of the nation and its

Read More
301 Words | 2 Pages

This part in the Constitution means to me that the government can not turn into a dictatorship under the Constitution.

Read More

More about Dbq Essay On The Judicial Branch

Related Topics

Open Document