The argument/famous Supreme Court case Madison vs. Marbury asked us the question should the Judicial Branch be able to declare laws unconstitutional. I think the Judicial Branch should be able to declare a law unconstitutional. I believe this because the judicial branch is very small, they have no other checks on any other branch, and they don’t receive any money.
The Judicial Branch is so small. It doesn’t have as many parts to it as the Executive and Legislative Branches. They also don’t do as much as the other branches, because while the Legislative Branch creates Laws and the Executive Branch controls most of the federal organizations the Judicial Branch just hears different cases that appeal through the lower courts. One Example of this is in document B where is says,” The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the …show more content…
This means that they can’t really be bribed. Document B talks about this when it says, “The judiciary, on contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society;” This is saying that the Judicial Branch has no control over the money or power of the government. For this reason there is really no way for the Judicial Branch to be bribed. This makes their decisions based actually on what they think and not what other people want them to think.
As stated earlier I believe that the Judicial Branch should have the right to decide if a law is constitutional or not. The court case of Marbury vs. Madison is important because it brought up this point. I believe this is true because the judicial branch is very small, they have no other checks on any other branch, and they don’t receive any money. Because they are the branch to decide if something is lawful or not they are the perfect branch to make the decision on whether something is constitutional or
IV. Addressing the opposition A. Argument 1 The Plaintiff has argued that this regulation is in best interest for the public and provides security for the society as a whole. They want the regulation to be considered Constitutional because it was voted on by the majority and therefore, it is in the best interest of the community and should therefore be enacted. This argument does not speak to the constitutional issue of the case. The Supreme Court’s main objective is to protect individuals and minorities from oppressive government.
Although a plethora of critics mention that the judicial branch is considered the weakest out of the three branches, none of the branches are truly weak. The judicial branch still plays a prevalent role in checking and balancing the other two branches. The purpose of judicial review is mainly to imply judicial supremacy in interpreting different various types of laws. In Federalist 78 by Alexander Hamilton, he decreed that judicial courts must “respect the right of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power (Woll 359).” Judicial courts must have complete independence of the courts of justice and be able to deem Congressional laws as unconstitutional.
This week we are to write about the Judicial Branch. I have chosen the high and almighty U.S. Supreme Court. Section 1 of Article III of The Constitution states that there should be a sole high court, the Supreme Court, that shall have the vested judicial powers of the United States. (The Constitution) The Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 was the landmark statute that was introduced in the first session of the United States Congress.
Judicial Review is the principle that the Judicial Branch has the right to review the constitutionality of the legislative and executive branch. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” (Marbury vs. Madison, 1803) Chief Justice at the time, John Marshall, said this when expressing the court's opinion in the Marbury vs. Madison case. The use of “duty” is important because it shows an obligation and responsibility for the Judicial Branch to have Judicial Review.
The main purpose of a judicial branch per Hamilton is to "declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void", meaning to rule any laws or policies not in accordance with the Constitution, unconstitutional. He also states that they serve a purpose as an intermediate body between the people and the legislative branch, to check the legislature's
The Legislative branch is Congress, the have the house of representatives which is based on the state’s population and the senate which has two senators for each state. The Legislative branch makes bills and laws that get sent to the president to be put into action. The Executive branch is the president and his cabinet, The Executive branch makes sure the laws are enforced, but if it isn’t approved it can be sent back to congress using checks and balances. Then the Judicial branch is the Supreme court and other lower courts like the state and local courts, what they do is deal out what needs to be done to those that break the law. They also use checks and balances where if the president and congress passes a law the Judicial branch can send it back because the can say it’s
Although the braches were established in 1787, there has been a lot of changes (amendments) that were necessary throughout the past few centuries. The branch to be discussed will be the Judicial Branch in regards to a strength and a weakness within the branch. One major strength of the Judiciary branch of our government is the process in which the Justice are appointed. Unlike the presidency where the Electoral College decide who the next president will be, there are certain procedures emplaced in order to determine who the Justices will be. The determination of how many Justices are allowed has been laid out for us.
The Supreme Court only has power when they strike down a law as unconstitutional and even then their power to protect minorities is limited. When the Court does not declare something unconstitutional they are upholding legislation, effectively agreeing with the other two branches. When the Court hears a case and
The Constitution may be a mess and need amendments, but it covers our basic rights and freedoms. There are many clauses within it that assure these rights will be kept and not changed. In one one of the clauses it states that no bill shall be passed that would override
In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton lays out his vision for how the Supreme Court of the United States should function. In it, he assures that one of the key roles of the Supreme Court will be to check the constitutionality of congressional legislation in order to protect the individual rights of the people. However, in his opinion for the Marbury v. Madison case in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall interprets the power of judicial review from Article III of the constitution, in a way in which the court becomes a powerful branch of government. With Marshall’s interpretation, the court is able to “strike down” legislation by the command of the people which is embedded in the Constitution (O’Brien 173). Hamilton intended for the court to
2- The constitution of the judiciary department might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principal. The system of checks and balances is one of the big ones. This gives all 3 branches of government about the same power but over certain things. They are all ruled over
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the time was Chief Justice John Marshall, and he declared that this whole process of delivering commissions for judges, the Judiciary Act, was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court declared this act illegal, because it gave the Supreme Court a power that they were forbidden to have. This is when the first law was declared unconstitutional and judicial review came into