Textualism was used in the recent case of K-Mart vs. Cartier. These two companies debated over the meaning of “of foreign manufacturers”. Some may think that this phrase means “manufactured by a foreigner” rather than “manufactured in a foreign country”, but using the process of textualism, the supreme court decided that these words plainly mean “manufactured
This distinction in the law is termed as functions. According to the amendment, the judge is designated to try the law whereas the jury can try according to facts. This distinguishing between the law and fact is important as it gives the legitimacy to the decree of juries. At the same time, the amendment prevents from violation of the justified legal anticipations of the
Today, it is accepted that the supreme court will evaluate the federal laws and the acts of the executive and legislative branches. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each” (“Marbury v. Madison,” PBS). In Marshall’s majority opinion, he states the role of the judicial branch, which is like ours now.
It was the case that built a foundation and understanding for the way we see our contemporary justice system today. Marbury v. Madison pointed out for the American people, the Constitution although is a written document, it is not written in stone. The constitution is a flexible document, a document that is up for interpretation. It defines who has what power, how much power, and when the power needs to be enforced. This case pointed out although all branches of government: legislative, judicial, and executive share separate, equal powers the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and has the final interpretation on what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional.
The way something is interpreted is how it is used in the practices of law, so indeed the way something is written is imperative. Judicial Review is never actually explicitly stated and described in the constitution. The importance of interpretation goes right along with the concept of judicial review. If you boil things down that’s all judicial review is, a concept. Now this ‘concept’ was derived from the constitution by our justices in the supreme court, but it is something that falls under the interpretation of the constitution.
Judicial Restraint v Judicial Activism: District of Columbia v Heller, 2008 The Constitution states that the “judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court,” a court made up of justices from different backgrounds, races, religions, and most importantly political views. The Court has the ultimate responsibility of overseeing all affairs of Congress and – when deemed necessary – acting to overturn decisions found not in accordance with the Constitution. When deciding cases that could potentially violate the Constitution, justices use judicial restraint or judicial activism in their decision-making. Judicial activism is a term used for instances in which judges “creatively (re)interpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws, ” allowing them to meet the needs of the people that would not be met otherwise; justices essentially act as policy makers. The fault in this lies in the motivation behind the justices’ decisions; with judicial activism, it is nearly impossible to view law as objective and free of bias.
Madison case implications was the establishment of a precedent, which is a legal decision to serve as an example in other court cases. The court is interpreted as having the power to review the acts of the congress as well as that of the president and thus can overrule the laws it finds to be unconstitutional. The bold ruling decision also established the Judiciary as an equal partner with the legislature and the Executive in completing the government system. In this regard, the constitution is the supreme law of the land and it is the Supreme Court that interprets the meaning of the constitution. It is, therefore, the duty of the judiciary to say what the law
He expanded the power of the Supreme Court by declaring that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that the Supreme Court Justices were the final deciders. In the Marbury vs. Madison case, Marshall wrote "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” John Marshall was clearly in favor of judicial power, and believed that the Supreme Court should have the final say in cases involving an interpretation of the Constitution. While establishing this, he kept the separation of powers in mind, as he wanted equal representation among the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches. In the Marbury vs. Madison, John Marshall declared that the Judicial Branch could not force Madison to deliver the commission. Marshall obviously supported the judicial branch, but the Constitution took precedent over
Malaysian judiciary refers to the Malaysian court system. It is an independent body separate from the legislative and executive arms of government. The role of courts is to ensure the law and order are followed, that justice is done, and criminals are punished. The head of the judiciary is the Chief Justice. The hierarchy of courts of Malaysia begins with the Magistrates’ Court, followed by the Sessions Court, High Court, Court of Appeal and finally is the Federal Court of Malaysia.
Parliamentary Sovereignty is a major principle of the UK constitution. This means that parliament is the supreme legal authority and has the power to both make and break laws. Generally speaking no court, including the highest court in the land- the Supreme Court, has the power to overrule its legislation. Instead, it is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret and develop the law where necessary. This provides proof that the UK courts are subordinate to parliament.