Judicial Review: The Power Of Other Branches Checking The Legislative Branch

Abstract: The notion of judicial review requires courts to examine the legality of the executive branch. The government must carry out its obligations in accordance with constitutional principles. The judicial branch operates in accordance with constitutional principles. A constitutional provision that requires all laws in the United States to be consistent with the federal constitution if passed by the same legislature that enacted the legislation in question. The employee is not susceptible to the current political atmosphere or special interest law, interpretation of the law, executive action, and meets the doctrine's objective to have the following characteristics: (1) Seriousness of purpose in the attempt to comprehend the absence of the

The judiciary has the authority to review laws enacted by Congress and strike them down if they violate the Constitution. This serves as a vital check on the legislative branch, preventing it from exceeding its enumerated powers or infringing upon individual rights and liberties protected by the Constitution. Balancing the Executive Branch Judicial review also acts as a check on the executive branch by subjecting its actions and policies to constitutional scrutiny. The President and executive agencies must adhere to the Constitution and statutory law in implementing and enforcing laws passed by Congress. If an executive action is deemed unconstitutional, it can be challenged in court, and the judiciary has the power to invalidate it. This ensures that the executive branch operates within the bounds of the Constitution and does not overstep its authority. Safeguarding Federalism Moreover, judicial review reinforces the principle of federalism by adjudicating disputes between the federal government and state governments. The judiciary serves as the arbiter in conflicts between federal and state laws or actions, determining the constitutionality of each. This ensures that both levels of government operate within their

Richard Dobbs Speight, a signer of the Constitution, was one of the first to criticize the doctrine. Speight wrote a letter to Supreme Court Justice James Iredell, stating that he did not claim to support the law but complained about his power to declare it voidable. He denies that there is any such power in theory, and the Constitution does not support him or give him any right to exercise that power. In Ratification Time, the Constitutional Convention recognizes the importance of a mechanism to prevent laws from being made and enacted that violate the written constitution. The British doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty emphasized the legislature as the supreme arm of government. Delegates debated whether Congress or the judiciary should decide the constitutionality of laws. Hamilton argued that the federal judiciary had a role in reviewing laws, because the legislature was not a constitutional judge in its own right. Courts were designed as intermediate bodies between the people and the legislature to keep their powers within limits. Since the adoption of the Constitution, some have argued that the power of judicial review allows courts to impose their own views on the law without adequate scrutiny of any other branch of government. Robert Yates, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, argued that courts would loosely use the power of judicial