Federal Government 110
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. It was first generated into a doctrine after the case of Marbury vs Madison. This …show more content…
Thomas Jefferson gave a warning about the confines of judicial review and he thinks that judicial review would make the constitution nothing but “a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” I think that Jefferson is right and that judicial review does indeed give the Judiciary the power to see law as they please. The idea portrayed by Jefferson is even more of a realization when you add that the Judiciary already regulates the law and interprets it as they see fit, grounded in the constitution, but judicial review gives that power over all branches… It’s a huge concept to wrap your mind around that the judicial branch could in fact arise this power out of the constitution derived from an interpretation of words, but it’s true. This power alone is enough to drive the argument against the principle that is judicial review. The argument alone is sufficient to see that the courts having the power of judicial review could be disastrous. Knowing that this power gives leeway for an Oligarchy to form , I still believe that it gives power for the Judiciary to provide fair and just service to us as a …show more content…
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. 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 judicial review strengthens the constitutional principle of checks and balances. In the 1789 judiciary act and Judiciary act of 1801 had the right to allow the writs of mandamus. Meaning that they court should have power and including the fact that they are forced to do something. John Marshall weakened the power of the supreme court by getting rid of the power. However he did improve the branch by creating the judicial review.
Sophie Byrne John Ward POLI 100 29 March 2023 Two Week Essay Assignment Week 10 & 11 In "The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review," published in the Yale Law Journal, Jeremy Waldron argues against the concept of judicial review, which is a concept allowing courts to strike down laws that are deemed unconstitutional. Waldron argues that this concept undermines democracy and should be replaced by a system of parliamentary sovereignty; where the legislative branch holds the power to determine the final outcome when interpreting the constitution.
Only then will the judges be able to protect the constitution and the rights and privileges of the citizens, along with changing the minds of the framers who thought the judicial branch was weak. Hamilton emphasized that it was necessary for the judicial branch to take advantage of its power of checks and balances and make itself independent, however, still continue to work hand in hand with the
Marbury v. Madison during the year of 1803, discussed the judicial branch’s power over lawmaking. Thomas Jefferson mentioned how the Court’s final choice made the Constitution, “a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary” (Document D). The judicial branch did receive more freedom early in the nineteenth century. The judicial branch was still required to follow what is stated in the Constitution in order to get a national law passed.
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
The U.S. Constitution is a Living Document Since society has changed dramatically between the eighteenth and twenty first century, the U.S Constitution should be considered as a living document because it is not applicable in today's society and therefore in need of some changes in order to fit into today’s society. When our founding fathers wrote the constitution they did not have in mind all the technological advancements the U.S. will one day have. Such as the internet, television, radio, and so on. Other’s will say that if the constitution was considered a living document then judges will take advantage and manipulate the constitution to their benefit, but they don’t realize that people already manipulate the constitution. There were laws that contradicted the constitution like the Judiciary Act of 1789, which contradicts Article III of the Constitution in the Marbury v. Madison case.
Ultimately, the judicial branch has to go back to what the founding fathers intended for the court’s purpose and to use the power accordingly. To maintain the strength of the branch, the courts must think about what is constitutionally right. Their decisions should reflect the amendments as well. “Judicial power plays an important role in the rule of law, even while it comes frequently into tension with norms of democratic rule” (Friedman & Delaney, 2011, p. 57, para. 1). This is the only way that citizens will feel like their rights are truly protected.
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
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
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.
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
The first article of the Constitution says "ALL legislative powers...shall be vested in a Congress." The second article then reads "the executive power...in a President." The third article gives the "judicial power of the United States in one Supreme Court" and "in such inferior Courts as the Congress...may establish."
The meaning of the Constitution may be puzzling and unclear but I find that the Living Constitution approach is the most practical for making judgements about particular cases. If I were a justice in the Supreme Court, I would use this approach because it’s based on a system that the document of the Constitution sets up a set of timeless principles that are applied in today’s world and not simply based on the time when it was written. The Constitution should be used to help solve problems by coming up with what these principles mean when applied in today’s world. An example of this is the controversy of whether marriage can or cannot be denied to gay people because of equality.
Much has been discussed about the ‘undemocratic’ nature of judicial review, but this is a problem only when democratic institutions are of good working order (Waldron, 1360). With the large power vested in the president in Algeria, introducing a body that could check the currently asymmetric separation of powers would be a just compensation for a flawed democratic