The Supreme Court Larry Kramer Summary

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. Both of these cases go to show that judicial interpretation allows some flexibility into the constitution. It allows things that are not expressly stated in the constitution to be made

In simpler terms, the Supreme Court should be stripped of their power for now and in the foreseeable future, they should be given lesser power. Our society is dependent of the decisions that the Supreme Court make–it could change the way we work if one law is passed by them. For every upside there is a downside, the Supreme Court is based on bias opinions and what they think is suitable for the United States of America. If Americans continue to give power to these judicals, the United States of America may never experience an exponential growth in human

Courts prove unsuccessful in achieving social change due to the constraints on the court’s power. Rosenburg’s assessment that courts are “an institution that is structurally challenged” demonstrates the Constrained Court view. In this view, the Court’s lack of judicial independence, inability to implement policies, and the limited nature of constitutional rights inhibit courts from producing real social reform. For activists to bring a claim to court, they must frame their goal as a right guaranteed by the constitution, leading to the courts hearing less cases (Rosenburg 11). The nature of the three branches also creates a system of checks and balances in which Congress or the executive branch can reverse a controversial decision, rendering the Court’s impact void. Courts are also aware of popular opinion, and are unlikely to “support significant

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 purpose of the United States Constitution is to limit the power of the federal government not the American people.” – The Federalist Papers. Our government is not the exact same way it was from the very beginning of its creation. It has changed dramatically over the course of about two-hundred years, as said in the video, “The Constitution must change for challenges in the future.” Truthfully, it has been changed and adapted to meet the ever changing needs of our society. In the very beginning or the “birth,” of our United States government we did not have a constitution, in fact the democratic experiment did not begin in 1776. The American government went through several trial and errors to see what worked and what did not before creating and establishing the U.S. Constitution.

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. This process is called judicial review; judicial review by definition is the “power of a court to declare acts of governmental bodies contrary to the Constitution null and void” (Neubauer and Meinhold 492). Chief Justice John Marshall first brought up this power in the

I disagree with Alexander Hamilton’s statement that the "Judiciary is the weakest branch of government." The United States government is divided among three branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The executive and legislative branches are selected by the people, but the members of the Judicial Branch are chosen by the President. Which already shows how important the judicial branch is. The judicial branch is essential because it supplements the other two branches. It interprets the law and decides if the laws are constitutional. The job of the judicial branch is to balance out the executive and legislative branches of government, so that no branch is more powerful than the others. Not having the judicial branch, would

If Rosenberg is correct, this does not mean that Hamilton’s argument that the Court is the “least dangerous branch” is also correct. Rosenberg’s view that courts can only produce significant social change given weak barriers and constraints does not by itself qualify Hamilton’s argument. There are other ways that the Court exerts influence in the political system other than promoting social change.

The Federalist is a collection of eighty-five essays written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay between October 1787 and May 1788. They were written to convince New York State to ratify the U.S. Constitution. Each essay was signed “Publius” even though they were written by three different authors, Hamilton wrote fifty-two, Madison’s wrote twenty-eight, and Jay wrote five of the essays. These articles were aimed to modifying public opinion in favor of ratifying the new Constitution. One of the most famous of the Federalist Papers, Number Fifty One, explains the Constitutional the fundamental truth of checks and balances.

Freelance writer and professor Ed Cray presents a thorough recount of Chief Justice Earl Warren’s political and personal life in Chief Justice: A Biography of Earl Warren. Warren first enters the scene as a district attorney and later, the attorney general of California. The second chapter, then, focuses on Warren’s role as the 30th governor of California and the 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee. Finally, the final chapters emphasize his role as a Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and chair of the Warren Commission. Warren’s involvement in the political scene warrants this comprehensive 700-page biography.

Although the notion of judicial review, which was not included in the Constitution, the Supreme Court defeated a congressional initiative in the Mary Libby Madison case to legitimize it. Early in the twentieth century, the concept of judicial review was accepted by the courts and was applied in many cases involving States. The independence of the court has also been maintained to this day. As Hamilton put it in his paper, as long as the judge performs the task in accordance with the constitution, the term of office of the judge is permanent and not temporary. The court decided to uphold the constitution and has been checked and removed any law that does not uphold the constitutional spirit. The Supreme Court and other lower courts have always had the power to examine the legislature and the government

All over the world, it is possible to see government systems that differ from each other. The powers of branches are extremely important in government systems, but there are some questions that need to be answered. How strong should these branches be? How should their powers change? In the US, there is a federal government system. After investigating the power change of each branch, the situation of the country after those changes demonstrates if that was necessary or not. In addition, these investigations allow us to see a “perfect” form of government. For example, Congress is the place where people are represented and the power of Congress depends on historical events.Under normal conditions, the powers of the branches should be

There have been thousands amendments proposed in Congress. The Constitution creates a two-stage amendment process. This process is known as the proposal and ratification. It is extremely difficult for an amendment to become a part of the Constitution. Therefore, an amendment can be blocked at any given time. The importance of the Supreme Court increases as the Constitution considers proposing

In 1776 the Declaration of Independence was signed and ratified setting America on the fasttrack to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Some documents that encouraged and also followed up on the Declaration was the pamphlet, “Common Sense,” written by Thomas Paine, and also Federalist Paper No. 51 which was written by James Madison. The - now - historical document by Thomas Paine was all about the many reasons why America should unite against Great Britain to gain their independence. It also pushed a lot for a representative government. At the time that Thomas Paine was writing the pamphlet, America had not yet declared Independence and was, in fact, still on the edge about it. “Common Sense” was a big

The two main prevailing legal philosophies when it comes to constitutional interpretation are originalism and non-originalism. Originalists believe in interpreting the constitution based directly on the framers’ intent when writing it and other Amendments while non-originalists view the Constitution in the context of the time it is applied, referring back to the spirit of the framers’ intent, not the intent itself. Both these ideologies alone are seriously flawed and no one would ever argue that historical intent alone or modern context and consequences alone would lead to smart legal opinions.