Essay On Should The Supreme Court Have The Power Of Judicial Review

Judicial Branch is established under Article III of the Constitution. It was created to be the weakest of all three branches of government. Each branch has its own characteristics, but what distinguishes this branch from other two is that Judiciary is passive. It cannot act until someone brings case in front of them. Even if some law or act is unconstitutional, courts are powerless to do anything on their own. Contrary to Judiciary, other two branches are active, and have power to attack other subjects.

In 1789, each of the thirteen states had already establish a judicial system such as criminal and civil cases. The United States Constitution is the original document in which it established fundamental laws for the national government as well as protecting the right of the citizens. The U.S Constitution was designed to avoid too much power in the system of checks and balances. As years went by, the Constitution began to adapt to the modern changes. Subsequently, the judicial system began to full fill the U.S Constitution’s purpose. Both Federal and State have their own jurisdiction and functions as stated in the Constitution. However, in recent years the judicial system has been broken due to lack of structure in law on the book and law in action.

The Supreme Court often oversteps its perceived legal sovereignty when using judicial review. Article III of the Constitution solely vests the courts the “judicial power of the United States” never mentioning the power of judicial review. The judiciary’s duty, according to the law of the land, is “to interpret the laws, not scan the authority of the lawgiver” (Gibson, J.). The judiciary has not followed a strict interpretation of the constitution; rather, it has encroached on the power of the legislative branch and the sanctity of the separation of powers. If the Constitution “were to come into collision with an act of the legislature” (Gibson, J.), the Constitution would take precedent, but it is

The American concept of democracy provides that no branch of government shall be more powerful and uncontrolled than the other branches (Lutzenberger, 2012). Judicial review is the power of the courts to oversee and prevent the legislative and executive branches from becoming abusive. Through this power, the courts interpret the meaning of laws and their application. They can invalidate a law, which they deem inconsistent with the US Constitution. They can also change the application of the law when interpreting it. Although the Constitution does not explicitly mention this power, the courts infer it from the provisions on the judicial branch in the Constitution. This inference was first made in 1803 in the Marbury v Madison case. The court declared the existence of the power and that it was for the exclusive use of the courts. They use it to interpret the intents of the Constitution on legal issues submitted to them for decision (Lutzenberger).

In the Constitution, the Supreme Court is the overriding law of the land. The Supreme Court can overrule the decisions made by the likes of a state or appeals court. The Constitution is clear in its attempts to unify the nation and strengthen the federal government, all while maintaining the freedoms of the states and the feeling of equality. Though the Constitution is written in a vague way, leaving it to be open for interpretation and allowing it to conform with the changes that time brings to society. But because of the uncertainty of the document, it has often been misinterpreted, or has caused a wide array of viewpoints of a certain issues. The most memorable example being that of the Civil War, but today it is even more prevalent when we try to relate modern day issues to the ambiguous instructions left to us by our forefathers.

In this case, Chief Justice Roberts determines the role of the Court in his opinion. Roberts argues that the point of the Court is not to say whether a law is good or bad, if the people do not like the bill, it is their fault. Roberts says, “the responsibility of this Court is to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down the acts of Congress that transgress those limits” (Roberts, pg 6). He also says, “we must determine whether the Constitution grants Congress powers it now asserts, but which many States and individuals believe it does not possess” (Roberts, pg 2). To do so, the Court must examine the limits on the Government’s power and their own limited role in “policing those boundaries” (2). In this case, Roberts says the Court must uphold its constitutionality and the fundamental will of the people.

Compared to the powers of the Executive and Legislative branches, this seems like nothing. Another argument against this opinion is that the Judicial branch can still check the other branches all the same. This does not mean the other branches will listen forever. Without having the force of law and a high status, the Judicial branch may soon be overlooked and eventually overthrown. This concept shows how checks and balances have failed to create a limited yet even form of

-The power of the judicial review is “A court’s power to review statutes to decide if they conform to the U.S. or state constitutions”. It is important to our legal system to have the power of the judicial review as a tool to the disposal of the courts when conflicts arise within the law or constitution.

They are created in article 3 section 1 of the Constitution: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law. They cannot make new laws, and they have no special powers, but they preside over all federal criminal cases except impeachments, as the Justices are all delegated by the President. One of the main and controversial powers of the Courts is Judicial Review. While it is never explicit in the constitution that the courts have the power of Judicial review, it was clear that it was an intended power by the Founding Fathers. In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote: “The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.” Judicial Review allows

There are many checks and balances put into place by The Constitution, but one extremely important check was not in effect until after Marbury vs. Madison in 1803. This is the power given to the Supreme Court by Chief Justice John Marshall to declare laws made by Congress unconstitutional (“John Marshall”, 2016). This check was deemed necessary by the vague eighteenth clause in Article One, Section Eight of The Constitution giving Congress the power to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” The intention of this paper is to define what this clause means

Established in 1789, the Supreme Court was created to interpret the meaning of the Constitution and to use that interpretation to declare any actions of the Legislative or Executive Branches unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court was capable of also acquiring more functions as evidence of the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). The case dealt with President John Adams appointing sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Colombia. Adams appointed these justices so that his political party would have more justices than the rival party. Problematically, the appointment letters were not delivered by the end of his term. By that basis, President Thomas Jefferson annulled the appointments because he retained the right to appoint the justices during his time of jurisdiction. Consequently, this aggravated the appointed justice and therefore one of the justices named William Marbury filed a case in the Supreme Court over the commissions that they were promised (Goldstone). The Court ruled that Marbury did have a right to commission and also with it made a statement that enacted the doctrine of Judicial Review. This meant that the court had the "right to review, and possibly nullify, laws and governmental acts that violate the constitution. Judicial Review is a means of assuring that politicians and various other leaders adhere to the constitution and do not use powers granted to them by

Thirdly, does the Supreme Court have the power to deem acts of Congress unconstitutional? In the words of John Marshall, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.” Yes, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to determine whether a law or action from both the Executive and Legislative Branch is deemed unconstitutional.

In the founding days of our country, the learned individuals, who were united in the cause of creating a new, democratic nation, saw the need to have a system of laws in place, in which to govern the new nation (Neubauer & Fradella, 2008). These men joined together, at a Constitutional Convention, and began constructing the rules of governance, which would create this nation. The Constitution of the United States was the document, which was created, and it specifically addressed the forming of a federal judiciary in Article III. What our founding fathers could not agree on, was the scope of jurisdiction, which this new federal judiciary would operate under, and thus Article III of the United States Constitution is very brief (Neubauer & Fradella, 2008). At the constitutional

Many of America’s democratic principles are drawn from the constitution like the checks and balances system. The supreme court’s power of judicial review was not mentioned in the constitution. It evolved following the Marbury Vs Madison case and was not granted by the constitution. The Supreme Court therefore does not have the authority to carry out judicial review and become a quasi-legislative branch because the constitution granted this power to Congress.

In 1789, the final draft of the constitution of the United States came into effect. In article three it calls for "[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." In the article it neither says the duties, powers, or any organization of the supreme court. If left this up to congress and to the justices of the court itself for these details.