The fact that it is never in the constitution, but in parenthetical words, creates split sides on the subject as we talked about. Nevertheless, judicial review is still around and the judiciary doesn’t seem to have any interest on it becoming superseded any time
The Supreme Court does have too much power for an unelected body. It is true that the power to reinterpret the Constitution in the light of changing societal needs can amount to the power to amend the Constitution but they are subjected to checks by Congress and by the president. The House of Representatives can impeach justices and the Senate, try them and if found guilty by a two-thirds majority, remove them from office. Congress also has the power to initiate constitutional amendments, thereby seeking to overturn judgments of the Court with which it disagrees. They also have the power to alter the number of justices on the Court, the Supreme Court has no say in this whatsoever and therefore does not have the huge amount of power that it is accused of
You do not want Xlandia to be run on biases. If the people do select who are their judges, then they may be picking who will be kind to them, instead of being fair. You do not want a biased vote when it comes to the Constitution’s laws. We recommend that the Supreme Court should be independent and have the power of judicial review.
Both documents from both the Federalist document number one and the Anti-Federalists document number one examine what our nation would be like under one central government. These documents are very generalized introductions for their arguments to either created a new constitution, or ratify our existing one. Before the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the United States didn 't use a large, powerful government as we know it today. The nation put most of the power into individual states which created several issues with the overall standing of the U.S. The governing document during this time, the Articles of Confederation, had multiple weaknesses including that there was no tax authority, no chief executive, and no judicial system.
By splitting up the types of power the government and states hold, the citizens’ rights are afforded, as noted by James Madison, “double security” from tyranny by either the states or the government. All other political power remains with the states as a result of the 10th Amendment which also states that the federal government may only exercise the powers as defined within the Constitution. Unless the people want the federal government to execute a power, then the government can not take such individual actions like they have with the Net-neutrality rules. As Madison wrote in Federalist #45 of the Federalist Papers “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
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. Many fear that in acting as policy makers, justices bring their own partialities and beliefs into account instead of allowing the literal interpretation of the Constitution guide their decisions. On the other hand, judicial restraint can also be used when deciding cases. Judicial restraint refers to justices interpreting the United States Constitution word for word, keeping from bringing their own beliefs or biases into account and most importantly refraining from assuming the role of policy maker. Under judicial restraint, justices work to uphold the laws that are already in place and to maintain the laws as they stand except in the event that they are blatantly unconstitutional.
‘The Constitution reflects the time when it was written in a number of ways. Generally, these aspects of the Constitution show us how people at time were worried about different issues than we are today and that they had different sensibilities than we have. The authors of the constitution seemed to agree that no one wanted another monarch, but they had little idea how the government would actually make it without a king or an aristocrat. The constitution is called a "living document", meaning that it changes as the country changes. Through a system of checks and balances, amendments and Supreme Court rulings, the constitution has not been carved in stone, as it has been in time and in the environment.
The federal government does not have full, complete power of the government, due to the fact the federal government has to power to tax, regulate commerce, and put laws into place if and only if laws are so called “necessary and proper.” Another thing was for each branch of government to have their own separation of powers and check and balance other branches of government. Either though, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists did not agree on ideas, the Constitution is a document of the general compromise between the two political parties. The weakness of the Articles of the Confederation was resolved through the compromise of the Federalists and Anti-federalists political
This function of judicial review is not meant for specific cases but more importantly to guide the other two branches and we could say that thanks to this, the Supreme Court can actually modify laws to its preferences and interests. This is one of the main features that lead people to believe it is the most powerful branch of American government and even though it may sound extreme, we could very well say that the way the Supreme Court can declare something unconstitutional is unconstitutional
The states can contest the federal government rules and regulations in the federal judiciary branch. The states have contested federal laws, incidence of them blocking federal authorities from enforcing federal laws and cases involving individuals who break federal laws, but not state law (Levy, 2013). The ability of states to challenge federal laws that they feel are unconstitutional is part of our system of democracy. These challenges have led to parts of a law or the full law to be unconstitutional and overturned by the
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.
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.