ipl-logo

The Core Of The Case Against Judicial Review By Jeremy Waldron

486 Words2 Pages

Sophie Byrne
John Ward
POLI 100
29 March 2023
Two Week Essay Assignment Week 10 & 11

In "The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review," published in the Yale Law Journal, Jeremy Waldron argues against the concept of judicial review, which is a concept allowing courts to strike down laws that are deemed unconstitutional. Waldron argues that this concept undermines democracy and should be replaced by a system of parliamentary sovereignty; where the legislative branch holds the power to determine the final outcome when interpreting the constitution.

Waldron introduces his arguments by suggesting that judicial review has become an accepted part of modern constitutional theory, but overall it is fundamentally undemocratic because it takes decision-making power away from elected officials, by giving it to unelected judges. This, he says, is a violation of the principle of popular sovereignty, which states that the people should have the final say in how they are governed. Waldron infers that …show more content…

Brettschneider argues that judicial review can often enhance democracy by protecting the rights of minorities and ensuring that the majority does not overstep its bounds. He notes that democracy is not just about majority rule, but also about protecting the rights of individuals and minorities. Judicial review, he says, can help to ensure that these rights are not violated by the majority, and can help to prevent the tyranny of the majority that was feared by many of the framers of the US Constitution. Brettschneider also argues that judicial review can be seen as an extension of the principle of popular sovereignty, since it allows the people to hold their elected officials accountable by giving them the power to strike down laws that are deemed

Show More
Related
1241 Words | 5 Pages

In order to uphold the constitution, the Supreme Court must always aim to balance power among the branches of government and not overstep boundaries in exercising its own power. For this reason, the debate over handling political questions in the courtroom

Read More
1376 Words | 6 Pages

It can do this by giving the us citizens the opportunity to voice their opinion to political officials through email, phone, fax and letter even. A full on democracy tries to make everything set and stone. With a representative, we as people, even in the minority, can still have the power to influence the representative to have our desires heard, which is fairly significant. 51% majority rule can absolutely be detrimental to someone of the lowest minority. With majority rule there can be power over the lowest class.

Read More
599 Words | 3 Pages

What sets the judicial branch apart from the others is the inability to execute the laws and carry out their own decisions made in the high court. Just as it is the executives place to enforce the laws and the legislation to construct laws, it is the responsibility of the courts to determine if the Constitution has been

Read More
531 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
474 Words | 2 Pages

He emphasizes the Constitution's supremacy as the people's law, granting them the authority to control and modify the government. Webster concludes that the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, should resolve constitutional disputes, strengthening a centralized government for national

Read More
731 Words | 3 Pages

Unable to execute and mask violence under the forms of the Constitution. III. Enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interests both to the public and right to the citizens. • Madison added to that, “It is great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and recommended to adoption of mankind.” • Definition of democracy according to Madison,” A society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.”

Read More
1583 Words | 7 Pages

Modern society considers majority decision to be just. J.J. Rousseau, James Madison and Alexis de Tocqueville provide us with different accounts that show under what circumstance that is true and what are some weaknesses of this approach. For Rousseau the goal of a governing body was to manifest the general will. In Rousseau’s eyes for a government to achieve this, the society must be small and homogenous. Using this framework, Madison could not solve the Federalist issue (how to justify a strong central government in a large pluralistic territory).

Read More
657 Words | 3 Pages

A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism” (Basler,

Read More
474 Words | 2 Pages

Throughout this paper, this material will be further explained and examined through several different ideas and articles. The first idea that will be discussed, regarding the principles presented above, can be demonstrated through the article, The Right of “Free Suffrage” (1776). This article

Read More
528 Words | 3 Pages

Judicial Review was always argued by John B. Gibson, Anti federalist and even President Andrew Jackson, identifying several arguments against it, for example; “Judicial review could lead to political turmoil if the other branches of government, or state, refuses to acquiesce to the court’s interpretation of the constitution”. Anti-federalists were against the judicial review like Brutus, who feared that the court would use judicial review to eliminate the power of the state courts, they believe it’s a threat since it could enforce Supreme Court decisions which President Andrew Jackson disagree with “Judicial review makes the judiciary equal or even superior to the legislature, even though judges are not elected”. Federalist 78 was the 78th

Read More
416 Words | 2 Pages

Judicial review is the power of the judicial branch to declare actions of the legislative branch (congress) or executive branch (president) unconstitutional - not following the rules set in the US Constitution. If the action is considered, the rule or law is done away with. Judicial review not only protects the citizens of the United States, but it also protects the government from abusing its powers. Without judicial review, congress and the president could pass any law they wanted without following the US Constitution - the rule book.

Read More
1124 Words | 5 Pages

In 4,543 words, the Constitution serves as the foundation and basis of the United States government. Within this document, one will not find the word “democracy.” Although the Founders may have intended a democratic form of government, the absence of the word democracy has caused great controversy over the United States official form of government. Dr. I.M. Skeptic claims that the Constitution does not create a real democracy, but a veneer of a democracy, and that the politics are run by various kinds of elites; furthermore, the current system of government and the current political campaigns add supplemental support to these claims. The United States government has a representative democracy and therefore does not have a true

Read More
644 Words | 3 Pages

The Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics video titled “Key Constitutional Concepts” explores the history of the creation of the United States Constitution in addition to key concepts crucial to the document. Two central themes explored in the video include the protection of personal rights and importance of checks and balances. The video strives to explain these concepts through Supreme Court cases Gideon v. Wainwright and Youngstown v. Sawyer. To begin, the video retraces the steps leading up to the Constitutional Convention in Virginia in 1787. It opens by explaining the conflict that led to the Revolutionary War and the fragility of the new nation.

Read More
1521 Words | 7 Pages

The rights of the people may be enumerated in peace time and withdrawn in times of conflict, providing a greater degree of governmental control over the country. This is all a result of the uncodified constitution, and by extension, parliamentary sovereignty. However, the lack of a codified constitution and the resulting dearth of constitutional supremacy have problems of their own. Albert Dicey’s writings on parliamentary sovereignty encapsulate some of the greatest issues with the uncodified nature of the constitution.

Read More
736 Words | 3 Pages

In the United States, people always talk about freedom and equality. Especially they want elections could be more democratic. In American Democracy in Peril, Hudson’s main argument regarding chapter five “Election Without the People’s Voice,” is if elections want to be democratic, they must meet three essential criteria, which are to provide equal representation of all citizens, to be mechanisms for deliberation about public policy issues, and to control what government does. Unfortunately, those points that Hudson mentions are what American elections do not have. American elections do not provide equal representation to everyone in the country.

Read More

More about The Core Of The Case Against Judicial Review By Jeremy Waldron

Related Topics

Open Document