The United States is a constitutional republic with a representative democracy, the political system consists of three branches of government; Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The Supreme Court established under the Judiciary Act of 1789 is an integral part of America’s political system, which plays an important role in the checks and balances between the three branches of Government. The Supreme Court’s role in checks and balances was established following the case of Marbury vs. Madison, when the Supreme Court was granted the ability to perform Judicial Review. Over the last two centuries the Supreme Court has further evolved by becoming more involved with civil liberties and individual rights, as well as by changing the way the constitution
Americans in general view America as an ideal democracy in which every citizen has a voice and the views of the public have the power to shape the country. It is somewhat ironic, then, that the Constitutional Convention as a whole was mistrustful of democracy. Perhaps the most prominent holder of this opinion was James Madison, who was very vocal about the oppressive results of majority rule. Madison was of the opinion that the best way to ensure liberty was not leave it in the hands of the general public, but rather to split the federal government and allow each of the resulting branches curtail the power of the others. As Madison said in Federalist No. 51, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition”.
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.
Many people all around the country probably won’t certainly agree with the author of A More Perfect Constitution by Larry Sabato. Larry Sabato main idea was that the United State Constitution was outdated and needed to be reform somehow. He believed a change to the Constitution will going to be really hard due to the massive number of traditional political conservatives that the country had. Sabato explain that these conservatives’ people will oppose to the idea of different view of the Constitution by saying “the Constitution is just good as it is”. The conservatives’ support only their views as the Constitution was just fine the way it is, and it was original because that was the intent of the founders in how to interpret the Constitution.
Case Briefs: Case: State v. Marshall, 179 S.E. 427 (N.C. 1935). Opinion by: Stacy C.J. Facts: A homicide occurred at the defendant’s filling station. At the filling station the deceased was previously drinking and was sweet talking the defendant’s wife in a whispering conversation. The deceased was asked to leave the building, yet the defendant order him more than once.
In his book Judicial Tyranny: The New Kings of America, Mark Sutherland has assembled a wonderful cast of Christian attorneys, jurists, political scientists, and clergy who offer a rather perceptive analysis of judicial tyranny and our hope and means of restraining an overactive judiciary. Contributors include James Dobson, former U.S. Attorney General Edward Meese, former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, Don Feder, David Gibbs, Howard Phillips, Rev. Rick Scarborough, Phyllis Schlafly, and Herbert Titus among others. For too long, Congress has been complacent in the face of an overreaching, activist judiciary that has been out-of-step with the will of the great majority of the American people, and the judiciary has overstepped the bounds of
Justice Thurgood Marshall Response Justice Thurgood Marshall said in his “Reflections on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution”, “I do not believe the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental as today” (Marshall). In this passage of his essay, Judge Marshall is critical of the government that is
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
Clarence Thomas was born on June 23, 1948, in Pin Point, Georgia. His father left his family when he was young. That, and other issues as the years passed led his family into money problems. Clarence and his brother were sent to live with their grandfather and step-grandmother. His grandfather had a major influence on his religious beliefs. He transferred to St. John Vianney Minor Seminary while in high school and graduated from there in 1967. After the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. he heard some of his classmates at Immaculate Conception Seminary in Missouri making fun of his death. This led him to quit seminary and eventually attend Yale University Law School. After graduating from Yale, he worked for many years as a lawyer for the agricultural giant Monsanto. Then he moved to Washington D.C. where he worked some for President Ronald Reagan. In 1991 Thomas replaced the previous Supreme Court Justice and became the second African American justice to serve on the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas was a part of many important Supreme Court Cases. A few of them include Morse v. Frederick, United States v. Morrison, and Grutter v. Bollinger.
In other words, the Constitution, written by educated, rich men, would grant more power to those already in a high position. To add to this, the anti-Federalists stated that Constitution was not secure enough to uphold citizens’ rights. The Constitution would be responsible for the endangerments of human rights such as trial by jury and liberty of the press. The anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution because they thought it was an unfitting solution, which would lead the U.S. down the same path of injustice as Great Britain
The exclusionary rule is “based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent, that incriminating information must be seized according to constitutional specifications of due process or it will not be allowed as evidence in a criminal trial.” This corresponds with the fourth amendment because it protects us from unreasonable search and seizure from police. So, if police would find something incriminating evidence during an unreasonable search and seizure, it would not go through in the court of law hence the word “Exclusionary rule.”
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.
Anti-federalists felt as if the Constitution was a threat for the United States and it would only be the beginning of becoming a corrupt country. Amos Singletree said in his speech, “These lawyers and men of learning, and monied men, that talk so finely and gloss over matters so smoothly, to make us poor illiterate people swallow down the pill, expect to get into Congress themselves… and get all the power and all the money…” (Doc #5) Singletree was giving his reason on why he opposed the Constitution, mentioning that most of the congress men that want to ratify the constitution that just want to take advantage of them. He meant that once the Constitution was ratified they would be robbed from their rights, have all their money taken away, and have total control of America in their hands. The anti-federalists also argued that once the Constitution went into effect, everyone's rights would not be protected.
The article, “The Anti-federalists Were Right”, from Mises Daily, by Gary Galles, written on Sept. 27, 2006, is about the accuracy of the outcome of the Constitution that the anti-federalists had foretold. The anti-federalists did not approve the U.S. Constitution. They feared that it would form a tyrannical central government, even though the supporters of the Constitution guaranteed that a government like that would never be created. Anti-federalists informed Americans that the Constitution would affect our freedom and the money we own. They wanted to establish the Bill of Rights to form a boundary between the rights of the people and the government.
On the other hand, Marshall ruled the Judiciary Act of 1789 to be “an unconstitutional extension of judiciary power into the realm of the executive” (Marbury v. Madison, history.com). In spite of settling this dispute, ultimately, the Supreme Court elevated and contributed to its power by establishing its right to judicial review of laws made by Congress, that power not implicitly included in the Constitution beforehand (Marbury v. Madison, www.inspireeducators.com). All things considered, the Marbury v. Madison case granted the Supreme Court of the United States (S.C.O.T.U.S.) the power of judicial review, therefore allowing the Court to declare laws passed by Congress to be unconstitutional. This had and still has a tremendous and significant impact on the United States because if not for it, the laws passed could not be declined or conferred further about, or in other words, struck down and reviewed. Our judicial system would be limited.