Powerful Federal Government

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.

Over the year’s federalism has taken on many forms within our federal system. The distribution of powers within these many forms of federal systems has had to adapt to each of these forms in order to keep up with the times. The federal system initially was set up to serve the 13 original colonies and was able to maintain their own powers given by the powers vested in each colonies individual constitutions. Federalism or the split of power between colonies and the federal or nation governing body was simply to form agreements among one another in regards to laws. The state governments possessed the powers given to them by their state constitutions which was known as reserved powers and concurrent powers were state and federal government

As the country started to grow, the power of the Federal Government had also started to grow. The power that the Federal Government had, started to create conflict between the States ' and the Federal Government. By the 19th century, cases started to appear more frequently that challenged States ' rights against the National Government. Around the early 1800s, the major national concern was finical stability. The charter of the Bank of the United States had expired in 1811 and the Democratic-Republican Madison administration and the Republican Congress had failed to renew it. The War of 1812 had affected the nation 's economy, which caused many banks throughout the nation to weaken and eventually shut down. Congress had granted a charter to the Second Bank of the United States in 1816 and supplied one-fifth of its capital of 35 million dollars. Local bankers, farmers, politicians had viewed the bank as an image of power which caused the people disfavor the bank.

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.

Hana Kim Professor Yvonne Wollenberg Law and Politics 106 7 October 2015 Title In the United States government, there are three branches called the legislative, executive, and judicial branch. Out of these three, the judicial branch is the most powerful. The judicial branch is made up of the Supreme Court, the court with the most power in the country, and other federal courts that are lower in the system; the purpose of this branch is to look over laws and make sure they are constitutional and reasonable.

The Supreme Court priorities from the time period of 1790 to 1865 were establishing the Judiciary Act of 1789, which was instrumental in founding the Federal Court System. The framers believed that establishing a National Judiciary was an urgent and important task. After the installation of Chief Justice John Marshall who “used his dominance to strengthen the court 's position and advance the policies he favored” (Baum 20). However, in the decision of the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803 was an example of the power he exuded “in which the Court struck down a Federal statute for the first time” (Baum 20). This created some internal conflict between Marshall and President Thomas Jefferson, however Marshall was able to diffuse this with

Since the establishment of the United States Supreme Court in 1789 the role and function of the court has varied depending on the need of the country. There are several different schools of thought when it comes to the purpose and the function that the Supreme Court should take, ranging from strictly ruling on constitutional matters up to weighing in on national policy cases. To evaluate what role the court actually takes, one must examine both the institutional function as well as the political function. Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist No. 78 has been considered one of the most influential pieces of work in the field, as it lays the ground work of what he believed was the role of the court.

John Marshall had a significant impact on strengthening the national government during his term as Chief Justice from 1800-1830. Marshall achieved this goal by strengthening the power of the Supreme Court in three main court cases. In Marbury v. Madison Marshall established the practice of judicial review, then in McCulloch v. Maryland he weakened the central government and Gibbons v. Ogden provided the federal government with the ability to regulate interstate commerce. Marbury v. Madison (1803) was a court case that began the practice of judicial review. This case started because the night before President John Adams term ended, he appointed 42 justices of the peace.

Have you ever wondered how the founding father kept such a balanced government, blocking any tyranny trying to creep in? 55 delegates met in Philadelphia on September 17,1787 to create a brand new form of government that stopped tyranny, or “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective” (James Madison Federalist Paper #47,1788). So how did the Constitution prevent tyranny from taking place in government? The Constitution guarded against tyranny in four ways: federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, and balancing powers between large and small states.

The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branch were created and they all have equal powers. Federalist No. 51 states, “It is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others … But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.” The Anti-Federalists believed the executive branch had too much power and that it became a monarch government. Richard Henry Lee's Objections to the Constitution states, “In the new Constitution, the President and Senate have all the executive, and two thirds of the legislative power.

It was determined that “the Congress of the United States is granted for certain implied powers by the Constitution that are implemented in order to ensure for the proper function of the Federal Government. "3In relevance to the states, it was determined that “States cannot impose on the powers granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government by any action. "3 In the case of McCulloch vs Maryland,this included the act of imposing a state bank tax on a national bank. Federalism This case tells us that the relationship between federal and state government is limited.

John Marshall wrote, “the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void” (Findlaw.com, 2015). This was the first time the court nullified an act of Congress. Ultimately, the ruling by the Supreme Court brought into question the power of judicial review and their future involvement in regards to federal

The judicial review process is an important aspect of the US Court system. The process involves the use of powers by the Federal Courts to void the congress' acts that direct conflict with the Constitution. The Marbury v. Madison is arguably the landmark case that relates to Judicial Review. The Marbury v. Madison case was written in the year 1803 by the Chief Justice at that time named John Marshall. Thomas Jefferson won an election on the Democratic - Republican Party that had just been formed creating a panicky political atmosphere having defeated John Adams of the previous ruling party.

John Marshall’s Supreme Court hearings had a positive effect on the United States. From court cases like McCulloch v. Maryland, declared that the federal courts could decide if state laws were unconstitutional. The McCulloch v. Maryland trial went to the supreme court because Maryland had put a tax in place that too 2% of all assets of the bank or a flat rate of $30,000. John Marshall saw this tax as unconstitutional for the simple fact that people were being denied their property under the state legislature. From the Gibbons v. Ogden case, congress’s power over interstate commerce was strengthened.

The text also alluded to previous court cases, such as Marshall vs. Court and the National Back, where Congress was declared to having unconstitutional implementations, that were based on a loose structure. Summary Context and Point of View The Court had