ipl-logo

Judicial Review Essay

499 Words2 Pages

Opponents of judicial review have long held that it is not an expressed power written in the Constitution. In Article III, Section I of the Constitution it says "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court..." Here, the Constitution is giving judicial power to a supreme court (and inferior courts as the section continues). In Article III, section II of the Constitution it says, "The judicial Power [given to the Supreme Court in section I] shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;" The Constitution does not specifically give judges the power to issue judgments or hold someone in contempt. The same way it does not specifically grant judges the power of judicial review. Yet, no one argues these are not powers of a judge. When the Constitution was written it is well known that Americans understood that judicial review was part of the process. In Federalist #78 Hamilton states, "The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a …show more content…

When there is any disparity between this 'supreme law' and a statute, the Constitution prevails. More, though, it binds the judges of "every state" to give federal law preference. If it gives state judges the power of judicial review, why would it not give federal judges the power of judicial

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
863 Words | 4 Pages

First, it does not always reflect the will of the people. Since it is the people who elect the Congress and the President, I believe their will should prevail. The Supreme Court should obey the will of the people rather than relying on interpretation of the constitution. Also, Judicial Review may cause a president or Congress to delay some activity or law until they get an opinion from legal advisers as to the constitutionality of the action or law, (Clinton, 1989). This might affect solving some essential matters of urgency lest the Supreme Court rules against it

Read More
513 Words | 3 Pages

Shortly after, the Court found that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicts with the Constitution. Since the Constitution is defined to be a supreme law, the Supreme Court strikes down laws that conflict with the Constitution. In consequence, this case gained the court the power of Judicial Review and maintained the status of the Judiciary as a co-equal branch of

Read More
243 Words | 1 Pages

SCOTUS is a far cry from Alexander Hamilton’s claim in The Federalist #78 that the judiciary “will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because, the judiciary lacked the powers of the purse and of the sword, it had neither force nor will, but merely judgment.

Read More
1227 Words | 5 Pages

On the off chance that the Supreme Court did not set up translations of the Constitution when choosing on the off chance that they ought to topple an elected law, then there would be no positive understanding in the national government with reference to how certain parts of the Constitution ought to be seen. The Constitution is frequently thought to be the standard that all laws ought to conform to. On the off chance that there was no clear elucidation to the Constitution on a government level, than it would be troublesome for individuals from Congress to attempt to make laws that agree to the Constitution if there is no distinct intending to the Constitution's rights. Likewise, individuals from Congress may attempt to contend that the Constitution ought to be translated certainly just to guarantee that a law they support can get passed. There are a few individuals who might contend that if only one branch of government has the ability to decide how the Constitution ought to be translated, then this branch would turn out to be too effective.

Read More
933 Words | 4 Pages

Woodrow Wilson once referred to the Supreme Court as “a constant constitutional convention in continuous session”, due to the role they have played in interpreting the constitution as it is written. Due to the ambiguity found in much of the phrasing in the constitution, judicial interpretation of the constitution can be considered both necessary and inevitable (Comer, Gruhl et al., 2001). The courts have the power to declare unconstitutional the actions of the other branches and units of the government in what is known as judicial review (Tannahil, 2002). The first case in which the court elaborated on the principle of judicial review was that of Marbury v. Madison in 1803 and put forward that in the case of conflict between the constitution and a statute, it is “the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is” (Smith, 1975). Following this, the case of Fletcher v Peck (1810) is of equal importance as it was the first case in which a state law was declared by the court to be unconstitutional.

Read More
797 Words | 4 Pages

On the other hand, Marshall ruled the Judiciary Act of 1789 to be “an unconstitutional extension of judiciary power into the realm of the executive” (Marbury v. Madison, history.com). In spite of settling this dispute, ultimately, the Supreme Court elevated and contributed to its power by establishing its right to judicial review of laws made by Congress, that power not implicitly included in the Constitution beforehand (Marbury v. Madison, www.inspireeducators.com). All things considered, the Marbury v. Madison case granted the Supreme Court of the United States (S.C.O.T.U.S.) the power of judicial review, therefore allowing the Court to declare laws passed by Congress to be unconstitutional. This had and still has a tremendous and significant impact on the United States because if not for it, the laws passed could not be declined or conferred further about, or in other words, struck down and reviewed. Our judicial system would be limited.

Read More
372 Words | 2 Pages

The United States Constitution when first introduced was focused only on what powers the Federal Government would have. For many states who had just gained, their freedom from England there needed to be a guarantee that the newly formed government would not impose on people’s rights. The Bill of Rights was written for that purpose it was to apply to the federal government only. When different states started to pass laws that contradicted what the states had requested from the federal government when they added the Bill of Rights, which unfortunately prevented the federal Supreme Court from intervening in the states business.

Read More
557 Words | 3 Pages

Firstly, we can’t endorse the national government have all the power to decide what happens in each state, that’d be crazy. To let a bunch of people in Virginia decide on what happens in Colorado, it would be unethical. To prevent that, there needed to be a federal government. Each state has it’s own mini-government

Read More
1069 Words | 5 Pages

“The judicial branch interprets the constitution and the laws.” (Study). The Ohio Constitution and the United States Constitution both provide lesser courts (Study). Although, the Ohio Constitution “relies more on direct democracy” and in the United States Constitution “people don’t vote directly for the president. Instead they vote for electors who then vote for the president.”

Read More
962 Words | 4 Pages

The right of the courts to pass on the constitutionality of laws. The principle of judicial review was not new, it had been exercised before at the state level. In Marbury v. Madison, John Marshall extended it to encompass federal law. In so doing, he established the right of the supreme court of the United States to say what the constitution means and what it means not to the government of the states and to the federal government as well.”

Read More
1661 Words | 7 Pages

How well does the constitution keep our lawmaking process protected? Many people don’t think about this when they hear the words “lawmaking process” because the constitution talks about the three branches of government but doesn’t mention the words “lawmaking process”. The lawmaking process is a basic procedure that many don’t think about, but it affects our country. There are 2 different ways to “receive” laws, state process and our entire countries process. In my opinion, the constitution states the lawmaking process well and is a very good source about each branch of the government, so I think the constitution, protects the lawmaking process.

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
537 Words | 3 Pages

“There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right. ”(Martin Luther King, Jr.) Most people were racist but now since the civil rights have been established most have stopped being racist and moved on. Three supreme court case decisions influenced the civil rights movements by letting more and more poeple know what the Supreme Court was doing to African Americans,and of the unfair him crow laws:(Dred Scott v. Sanford,Plessy v. Ferguson,Brown v. Board of Education). Dred Scott v. Sanford Is a case that most people felt that Dred Scott had an unfair charge against him.

Read More
801 Words | 4 Pages

Judicial selection is an intriguing topic as there are multiple ways that judges take their seat on the bench. The United States Constitution spells out how federal judges are selected and leaves it up to the individual states to establish their means for selecting judges. In federal courts, judges are appointed and it varies between appointment and election for state courts. The purpose of this paper is to examine the differences between appointments and elections (as well as the multiple types of elections) and to give an opinion as to which is the better alternative. Federal judges are appointed by the President of the United States and are confirmed on the advice and consent of the United States Senate.

Read More

More about Judicial Review Essay

Related Topics

Open Document