These authorities that the national government should have, were all up to the states to decide under the Articles. With the taking away some of the states rights in the Constitution, Anti-federalists feared that this would leave the states too weak, resulting in more problems. Under the new Constitution, many powers that were now in the government 's hands are: the power to levy and collect taxes, the power to regulate interstate commerce, the government set up a national court system consisting of district, circuit, and a supreme court, the government could enforce laws, there was now a house based on population, and a senate based on equal representation (two votes per state), to amend the Constitution, a ⅔ vote of Congress was needed, and a ¾ vote of the states were needed, and a majority rule was needed to pass bills. These new powers and abilities of the national government helped to create a strong, new
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
There was discussion of judicial review in Federalist No. 78, written by Alexander Hamilton, which explained that the federal courts would have the power of judicial review. Hamilton stated that under the Constitution, the federal judiciary would have the power to declare laws unconstitutional. He also stated that this was appropriate because it would protect the people against abuse of power by Congress.
Woodrow Wilson once referred to the Supreme Court as “a constant constitutional convention in continuous session”, due to the role they have played in interpreting the constitution as it is written. Due to the ambiguity found in much of the phrasing in the constitution, judicial interpretation of the constitution can be considered both necessary and inevitable (Comer, Gruhl et al., 2001). The courts have the power to declare unconstitutional the actions of the other branches and units of the government in what is known as judicial review (Tannahil, 2002). The first case in which the court elaborated on the principle of judicial review was that of Marbury v. Madison in 1803 and put forward that in the case of conflict between the constitution and a statute, it is “the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is” (Smith, 1975). 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.
A huge part of our nation’s rights and power are mostly expressed in the constitution created by our Founding Fathers. The constitution is a core aspect of the government because it has built foundations for our citizens and nation’s leaders to follow. The constitutions consist of amendments such as the bill of rights which includes the first ten amendments. Since the constitution is such an important factor of our government today, it is important to have a secure and difficult amendment process to be sure that each amendment has a purpose and help establish a stable government. The amendment process involves having both the houses of Congress and the states vote.
The patriotic ideals and notions of the American Revolution did not end after Britain’s defeat in the Revolutionary War; they continued to shape America in which its’ society has drastically changed in political, social, and economic aspects from the 1770s to the 1800s. The reconstruction of a new government based on the values of freedom and justice for citizens, the increased awareness of the rights of women and slavery, and the crisis that led to the promotion of agricultural importance in the government are results from the Revolution that greatly changed America. After officially separating from Britain, the lively principles of freedom, equality, and justice created in the American Revolution made it difficult and necessary to reconstruct
“'Tis done. We have become a nation.” said Benjamin Rush after the ratification of the Constitution on July 9, 1788. At this moment a new nation was born, with a basis that is at the heart of American history. The founding fathers wrote the Constitution after the failure of the Articles of Confederation.
How The Constitution Guards Against Tyranny The constitution, the american law. The constitution was made in Philadelphia in 1787 with the intent to replace the Articles of Confederation as the papers of american law. Because of the unfairness and the tyranny that the americans suffered at the hands of the british kings and rulers they set up the constitution in a way that certain writings would act as a guard against tyranny, an example of these guards are federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, bicameral. Tyranny is defined by James Madison as “ The accumulation of all powers … in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many (is) the very definition of tyranny.”
The United States Supreme Court was created by our Founders without many enumerated powers. Through legislation and precedent, the Supreme Court’s duties became apparent to the people and the other governing bodies. From judicial review to understanding unstated fundamental rights, the Supreme Court has furthered the American people’s understanding of our founding document, the Constitution. However, when it comes to the social climate of the United States can the Court dramatically change the people’s social views? There are two ways that the courts have been seen in allowing or impeding social change to be decided by the Courts.
The Supreme Court has looked over many cases, all making drastic life changes and some making no difference in the world. The case Texas vs. Johnson uproared so many political arguments, amendment arguments, and even country disputes. This case was and is still important because it brought up the basis of the government's beliefs against an individual beliefs. The Supreme Court did rule in favor of Johnson, but it disgusted them, and they did not believe it was okay. The main reason why the government and many military personales found it offensive ws because it found a different way to speech out against the nation.
I would have to disagree with Mr. Hamilton because the Judiciary, specifically the Supreme Court, is a powerful branch of the
Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10 that democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” This belief led the Constitutional Convention to drastically limit popular participation in government action. Even the president is not voted in by popular vote, and is rather selected by electorates, who were themselves originally selected by state legislatures. So essentially, the public would vote for the legislator, who would vote for the electorate, who would finally vote for the president. The justices of the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, are selected by the president and confirmed by congress rather than voted on.
The framers of the Constitution did not wish to return to the totalitarian system of governance imposed on colonial America by the British government. To ensure that no single person or entity had a monopoly on power, the Founding Fathers designed and instituted a system of checks and balances. The president's power is checked by the Congress, which can refuse to confirm his appointees, for example, and has the power to impeach or remove, a president. Congress may pass laws, but the president has the power to veto them. And the Supreme Court can rule on the constitutionality of a law, but Congress, with approval from two-thirds of the states, may amend the Constitution
Robert Isenhour Federal Government 110 10/10/17 Judicial Review Judicial Review had been obsolete until 1803 when the need for it arose in the case of Marbury vs. Madison, where it was then found to become a new component to the Judicial Branch. I am here to discuss why judicial review is and shall remain a doctrine commonly used in constitutional law. Judicial Review is the power for courts to review other government branches to determine the validity of its actions whether it be constitutional or unconstitutional. These ‘acts’ can be described as legislation passed by congress, presidential orders and actions, or all state and local governmental actions.
Constitution: Preamble and Bill of Rights” the author is trying to secure the unalienable rights of the people. In the first Amendment of the U.S. Constitution it states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” This Amendment gives power to the individual by prohibiting Congress from making new laws that will interfere with the freedom of speech of the people. The Preamble Constitution also reduces the power of the Federal Government by stating,” Secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” By saying this, the Constitution weakens the Federal Government by barring the government from making laws against these rights in not just the present but the future as well.