Why The Judicial Branch Is The Most Powerful

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

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

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.

In 1803, Thomas Jefferson was President of the United States of America and James Madison was Vice President. In the case Marbury vs. Madison, President Jefferson commanded Madison to fire Judge William Marbury, whom was previously appointed by President John Adams as he was leaving office, along with several other judges. Marbury later sued Madison citing the Judiciary Act of 1798. This act allowed the supreme court to review cases brought against a federal official. William Marbury was a federalist which meant he was in the same political party as Alexander Hamilton and John Adams.

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.

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. Adams had appointed several justices for the District of Columbia prior to being defeated. The senate had approved the commissions and the commissions signed by the president as well as being affixed with the government's official seal. However, the commissions were not delivered, and when Jefferson took office, he instructed James Madison the Secretary of States not to deliver them. William Marbury who was on the list of appointees petitioned the Supreme Court for a legal order compelling Madison to explain why he was not to receive the commission (Clinton 1994).

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 legislative, executive, and judicial branches each have ways to check the power of another branch. Congress has the power to approve and confirm Presidential nominations, override a President’s veto, impeach the President and remove him or her from office, and impeach judges from office. The President can nominate judges and veto Congressional legislation. The Court has the rights to declare presidential acts and laws unconstitutional. “...the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that they may be a check on the other…

This became a new way of thinking with Antonin Scalia joined the courts decades ago. However, before Scalia jointed the courts, the prior viewpoints were on where the Constitutional law was dominated by the idea of “contemporary ratification.” What this meant was, in cases and opinion wans, each generation must interpret the Constitution according to its own needs and the changing society since the Framing of the Constitution. Therefore, when Scalia joined the courts he became an aggressive advocate for a change in the courts viewpoints of “contemporary

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.

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.

During the early years when Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, there was an insignificant case that came about the Supreme Court. However, it was that case, Marbury v. Madison, that became one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in United States

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

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.

In other words, the court made up new law rather than respecting the constitution as