I have heard of the Marbury v. Madison case, when I was in my high school civil and criminal rights class. Giving the court the power to make a law unconstitutional, is their power of checks and balances on the legislative branch. Conversely, the courts have the power to also veto the bill, which makes it much harder for it to pass. For the bill to still pass if vetoed, Congress must have a two-thirds vote from all members. In the Marbury v. Madison case it gave the judicial branch the power of judicial review. Judicial review is when the actions of the legislative and executive branches are to be reviewed in, which may invalidate the decisions the other branches have passed. The case of Gideon v. Wainwright was in 1963, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously, all in favor, for Gideon’s argument. This case gave defendants the right to have a court appointed attorney if the defendant is unable to afford one, instead of representing themselves. When Gideon faced jail time he studied the law, and began a petition; however, the Florida Supreme Court denied it. Later on he wrote a message to the United States Supreme Court, which would then hear his case. Today this landmark case guarantee’s a right to council for defendants who cannot afford representation; subsequently, the courts are enforced to appoint them one. I selected this …show more content…
Ohio reached a decision on June 19th 1961, the Supreme Courts vote was split 5-3 in favor of Mapp. The issue in this case was using evidence obtained illegally, not having a search warrant, and using it in court cases. The police invaded Mapp’s house on the belief of her harboring a bombing suspect, but had found obscene pictures, which were obtained illegally. Now police need to get a search warrant in order to go through suspect’s homes and gather evidence, so they are not in violation of the law. This case was compelling to me, because in ways it can protect a criminal; however, it does protect the rights of