Judicial Review Pros And Cons

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. It was first generated into a doctrine after the case of Marbury vs Madison. This

Thomas Jefferson gave a warning about the confines of judicial review and he thinks that judicial review would make the constitution nothing but “a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” I think that Jefferson is right and that judicial review does indeed give the Judiciary the power to see law as they please. The idea portrayed by Jefferson is even more of a realization when you add that the Judiciary already regulates the law and interprets it as they see fit, grounded in the constitution, but judicial review gives that power over all branches… It’s a huge concept to wrap your mind around that the judicial branch could in fact arise this power out of the constitution derived from an interpretation of words, but it’s true. This power alone is enough to drive the argument against the principle that is judicial review. The argument alone is sufficient to see that the courts having the power of judicial review could be disastrous. Knowing that this power gives leeway for an Oligarchy to form , I still believe that it gives power for the Judiciary to provide fair and just service to us as a

The way something is interpreted is how it is used in the practices of law, so indeed the way something is written is imperative. Judicial Review is never actually explicitly stated and described in the constitution. The importance of interpretation goes right along with the concept of judicial review. If you boil things down that’s all judicial review is, a concept. Now this ‘concept’ was derived from the constitution by our justices in the supreme court, but it is something that falls under the interpretation of the constitution. The fact that it is never in the constitution, but in parenthetical words, creates split sides on the subject as we talked about. Nevertheless, judicial review is still around and the judiciary doesn’t seem to have any interest on it becoming superseded any time