ipl-logo

Judicial Branch Pros And Cons

477 Words2 Pages

Alexander Hamilton believed that the judicial branch is the least dangerous branch for several reasons. Perhaps Hamilton felt it is the least dangerous of the three branches of government because it does not make the laws as the legislative branch does; it simply interprets the laws that have been passed by the legislative branch and that have been approved by the executive branch. Also, there was little concern that the judiciary might be able to overpower the political branches; since Congress controlled the flow of money and the President the military, courts did not have nearly the same influence from a constitutional design standpoint. The effects of this is that the president and congress do have some control over the judiciary branch with their power to appoint and confirm appointments of judges and justice. Congress also may impeach judges which is very rare, alter the organization of the federal court system, and amend the Constitution. …show more content…

To protect the rights that the judiciary must be given the power of judicial review to declare as null and void laws that it deems unconstitutional. People of the Constitution claimed that judicial review gave the judiciary power superior to that of the legislative branch. Hamilton argues that both branches are inferior to the power of the people and that the judiciary's role is to ensure that the legislature remains a servant of the Constitution and the people who created it, not a master. Even though judicial review is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution.
The main purpose of a judicial branch per Hamilton is to "declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void", meaning to rule any laws or policies not in accordance with the Constitution, unconstitutional. He also states that they serve a purpose as an intermediate body between the people and the legislative branch, to check the legislature's

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
445 Words | 2 Pages

This keeps the legislative and judicial branches of government under checks because it allows the president to stop anything unjust from happening; they can also choose who not to nominate as a judge if that nominee doesn't fit the executive branch's

Read More
524 Words | 3 Pages

Hamilton argues that it is necessary for judicial power to be adjacent with legislature to ensure stability in the interpretation of nation laws. Hamilton argues that federal judiciary should include jurisdiction over cases that could lead to war. The reason is because “peace of the whole ought not to be left at the disposal of a part.” The entire country should not be at risk with war as the result of a decision made a state’s court. Hamilton states to the objection of the federal judiciary having authority over issues of equity, loans and financial obligations.

Read More
882 Words | 4 Pages

The Executive branch executes laws and is the president. The Judicial branch judges laws and is the Supreme Court. The Legislative branch creates laws and is the House of Representatives and Senate. James Madison said in Federalist Paper #47 Document B, “the accumulation of all powers...in the same hands...may be justly pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” This helps protect from tyranny because the Separation of Powers prevents all power from being in the same hands.

Read More
143 Words | 1 Pages

I disagree with Alexander Hamilton’s statement that the "Judiciary is the weakest branch of government. " The United States government is divided among three branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The executive and legislative branches are selected by the people, but the members of the Judicial Branch are chosen by the President. Which already shows how important the judicial branch is. The judicial branch is essential because it supplements the other two branches.

Read More
185 Words | 1 Pages

The ruling made by Chief Justice John Marshall in the1803 court case Marbury v. Madison was consider significance because it established the power of the judicial branch with the principle that the Supreme Court may declare an act of Congress void if it is considered inconsistent with the United States Constitution. This means that the court has the power to decide which laws are considered constitutional in what is referred to as judicial review. Judicial review in the courts, states that the judicial branch can review laws created by the legislative branch and establish if they are constitutional or not. The separation of power provided a type of check and balance to insure that no one branch in the government hold all the power and that

Read More
566 Words | 3 Pages

In addition, the executive branch was responsible for enforcing or vetoing laws passed by Congress (in addition to its other powers). As for the judiciary, it is responsible for interpreting federal laws and the constitution and for overseeing the decisions made by the federal and state courts. Before when it was unable to address economic and boundary disputes, the judiciary under the constitution was able to address a wide range conflicts. Above all, these three branches of government share equal power to prevent one form of government from becoming too

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
679 Words | 3 Pages

To balance out the judicial branch’s power, the legislative branch could change the size of the Supreme Court, commence amendments of the Constitution, and declare inferiority of courts to the Supreme Court. Correspondingly, the executive had much power balancing the other branches’ command, but this branch is famous for executing laws made by the Legislature. Regarding the Legislature, the executive branch had the ability to temporarily suspend appointments, outlaw power, and declare adjournment if, in any case, other houses cannot decide on adjournment. Concerning the Judiciary, the executive branch could employ judges, and this branch also had the power to pardon some crimes. Finally, the Judiciary was also able to hinder the abuse of power of the other two branches of government, and the branch also interpreted the law.

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
834 Words | 4 Pages

In the making of the constitution the constant aim was to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that they may be a check on the other. In other words, each branch shall have certain powers over the others to create a complete balanced government (Doc C). These checks would be key to the balance of the three powers, allowing no singular branch to have too much authority over another. For example while the legislative branch creates the laws, the executive must approve of them, and they do have the check (ability) to veto them if they so desire. Judicial review is also significant in the fact that the judiciary reviews certain actions made by both the executive and legislative branches (Doc C).

Read More
349 Words | 2 Pages

In 1787-1788 eighty-five essays appeared in the New York newspaper, they were supporting the federal constitution, Alexander Hamilton was one of the writers. Hamilton was responding to antifederalist who had claimed that absence of the Bill of Rights and a powerful Judiciary would bring oppression to the people. Hamilton argued that Judiciary was a weak branch of government compared to Executive and Legislature because it lacked an army to command and would only react to what the two branches of the government had proposed. I disagree with the statement by Alexander Hamilton that judiciary is the weakest branch of the government, maybe at that time it could have been viewed as so, but its power has increased through several amendments (Jellum, 2008). The Congress creates law, for example, they created the National Prohibition in the 1920s, and the president executes the laws by ensuring all the laws passed by the Congress are implemented.

Read More
741 Words | 3 Pages

Robert Isenhour Federal Government 110 10/10/17 Judicial Review Judicial Review had been obsolete until 1803 when the need for it arose in the case of Marbury vs. Madison, where it was then found to become a new component to the Judicial Branch. I am here to discuss why judicial review is and shall remain a doctrine commonly used in constitutional law. Judicial Review is the power for courts to review other government branches to determine the validity of its actions whether it be constitutional or unconstitutional. These ‘acts’ can be described as legislation passed by congress, presidential orders and actions, or all state and local governmental actions.

Read More
478 Words | 2 Pages

Hana Kim Professor Yvonne Wollenberg Law and Politics 106 7 October 2015 Title In the United States government, there are three branches called the legislative, executive, and judicial branch. Out of these three, the judicial branch is the most powerful. The judicial branch is made up of the Supreme Court, the court with the most power in the country, and other federal courts that are lower in the system; the purpose of this branch is to look over laws and make sure they are constitutional and reasonable.

Read More
814 Words | 4 Pages

Before its establishment, the judicial branch did not possess a fair amount of power in comparison to the other two branches. The system of judicial review is crucial in the U.S. government; it provides citizens with a political source of protection. Due to this authority, the Supreme Court is able to guarantee that “…each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power... [The court also] protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution.”

Read More

More about Judicial Branch Pros And Cons

Related Topics

Open Document