First, it was acknowledged that every individual is protected against losing their citizenship according to the Fourteenth Amendment, in Afroyim v. Rusk. That the Constitution requires, “clear and convincing evidence” that citizenship was voluntary denounced, which Congress does not have the power to constitute the standard of. Secondly, the court recognized that even though in the case of Nishikawa v. Dulles it was ruled that Congress does have the right to supply the standard of evidential proof; the case was not a fair decision based on the Constitution. Proof was left to Terrazas to show that he did not mean to denounce his citizenship. While congress does have the authority to set a standard on the federal level, it does not during civil cases.
The remedy given to Marbury stated that because the document had been sighed by an elected president and the signature had been confirmed he had a right to the justice position. The granting of this position did not violate the laws and the antifederalist could not keep Marbury from receiving the commission. More important this case set the precedent for judicial review the courts do have a right to issue a law unconstitutional. This precedent was made because the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature. Marbury V Madison-Case Brief) The constitution must govern law and laws passed by congress as a result cannot govern a case.
Taney’s opinion, on the other hand, would differ greatly from a Marshal opinion. Taney supports the dual federalism perspective, which holds that the state and national governments are equal in power, and places much emphasis on the Tenth Amendment. From Taney's opinion in Scott v. Sandford, it is evident that Taney holds an enclave view of the Tenth Amendment, meaning that there are areas of delegation specifically reserved to the states and the the federal government cannot intrude on. In the Scott v. Sandford ruling, Taney stated that Congress was out of line and had no power to regulate slavery in the territories. This court opinion invalidated the already repealed Missouri Compromise, demonstrating Taney’s support of the states overturning federal legislation that impeded on state sovereignty.
“[Britain’s] Magna Carta and bill of rights have long been the boast, as well as the security of that nation….this principle is a fundamental one… [and] such declarations should make a part of [the United States’ frame] of government” (Document B). This document limited the King's power. By the Barons stopping the KIng from doing anything they wanted they limited the KIng's government. The framers limited the government by making Amendments In the Bill of Rights. The branched cannot pass any law that is unconstitutional or against the people.
The freedom of speech itself is written in the first amendment of the United States Constitution. This essential right is protected by law, and listed immediately in the text. This truly highlights just how important it is to be able to speak, write, and share ideas freely. Information should not be denied based off of one group’s views. Our founding fathers stood up for this right, one that does not include censorship of any kind.
Constitution did not resolve the question of whether the federal courts should have this power over congressional and executive acts. During the early years of the Republic, the Supreme Court upheld congressional acts, which implied the power of judicial review. But the key question was whether the Court had the power to strike down an act of
Following this, the case of Fletcher v Peck (1810) is of equal importance as it was the first case in which a state law was declared by the court to be unconstitutional. Both of these cases go to show that judicial interpretation allows some flexibility into the constitution. It allows things that are not expressly stated in the constitution to be made
When I think of State Sovereignty I think of it as being non existent in our union. We do not have the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference. I strongly believe that proportional representation in both house of legislature could cause no harm or threat to the small states. In fact it will help build a stronger country.Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing,and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations. Regardless of the size of the states and population of the states I believe that it is only right and fair to have proportional representation in all states.
The judiciary is an independent arm of the government that ought to operate without influence or threats from the government or any other organization. The independence of the judiciary ensures it executes legal matters without bias and within the jurisdiction of the law. In England, sources of law include “legislation, common law, and European Union law” (Judiciary.gov.uk, 2016 n.d). Juries play significant roles in ensuring fair trials within the legal framework of the country’s constitution. Juries became an integral part of the judicial system as early as 1215 the same year that Magna Carta acknowledged the right to free trial through judgment by peers.