Judicial Review: Supreme Court Cases

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

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).

With the young nation of America entered into the 19th century, there were still major issues when it came to the balance of powers of the different government branches. The status of judicial review in the Supreme Court was never pressed upon or given any real structure to. The power of judicial review had appeared many times in history before the set up of the Supreme Court as, in England, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Sir Edward Coke made the originated the idea . During the ruling of the case of Dr. Bonham’s Case, Coke found that the London College of Physicians had no right to levy fines against anyone who violated their rules. He would later go on to state that, “no person should be a judge in his own case” (Fletcher 12). The act was revolutionary at the time as it set the notion of that an official body of government was needed to give fair governess to the people. The idea would pop up once in a while in events such as the Constitutional Convention where records that were kept by the textbook University of Chicago Law Review saw that “13 out of the 15 delegates made statements that were in support of the idea of judicial review” (Prakash 123). The interesting part about the quote is that it states that the idea of judicial review was in place in America many years before the actually case of Marbury v. Madison. Even in the Federalist Papers No. 78 which was published in May 28, 1788, by Alexander Hamilton, went into lengthy discussion about judicial review. In

Judicial Review – the power of the Supreme Court to say whether the federal, state, or local law or government action goes against the Constitution.

Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court of the United States to review actions taken by the Congress and the President and decide whether or not those actions are legal under the Constitution. The appointment process serves as a check and balance on the judicial branch because the members of the other two branches select the members of the judicial branch. They choose the Supreme Court justices and all federal court judges. The president and Congress, therefore, have the freedom and ability to shape the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the framers' intentions are not made sufficiently clear to provide easy answers on judicial review. The book states, “In recent decades, the court have, more often than not, upheld presidential power

Primarily, judicial review consists of four main components.5 The first dynamic of judicial review is that the Supreme Court can reject any federal, presidential or congressional, act or law which is deemed to be unconstitutional centred upon the judiciary’s interpretation of the United States Constitution.6 For instance, the Supreme Court can void a presidential-line item veto, i.e. the President’s ability to erase part of a bill passed by the legislature involving taxation or spending.7 In addition, the second factor of judicial review is the authority of the Supreme Court to strike down any state act (gubernatorial) or law (state legislature), which is judged as unconstitutional based, again, upon the Court’s interpretation of the United States Constitution.8 One such example of this power being exercised is when the Supreme Court annulled California’s attempt to enforce congressional term limits.9

A. Define Judicial Review- The power of the courts authority to review the actions of the executive and legislative branch and to invalidate if their actions are contrary to the constitutional principles.

The Judicial branch is shown to have four powers in document one (1) and only one power in document (2). The only consistent power of the branch is judicial review. This is the ability for any court to determine the constitutionality of a government action. Variations of judicial review are shown as two of the branches powers in document one (1). The other two being interpret the Constitution and laws and review lower court rulings.

The concept of Judicial Review is to review cases using the power of the courts over the actions of the executive and legislative branches to deem them invalid or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has a unique position because of its broad commitment to the American People and its Constitution. The Court's principles on judicial review are that The Constitution is the supreme law of the country, they have ultimate authority on constitutional matters, and they must vote against any law that clashes with the constitution. One of the most significant cases that brought forth such convictions was the case of Marbury vs. Madison in 1803. Which was a case that brought many complications because when Jefferson ordered his Secretary of State James

-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.

Since the establishment of our government the Judiciary branch has been intended to be the passive or least dangerous of the three branches; this can be seen in the Federalist Papers, said by Alexander Hamilton, “The Judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse” (Woll 373). This was soon thwarted when the power of judicial review came into play. Judicial review gave the Supreme Court the power it needed to be as influential and powerful as the other two branches. Throughout history judicial has been key in many controversial and important court case, beginning with Marbury vs. Madison, which established judicial review, to many other case including McCulloch vs. Maryland, Plessy vs. Ferguson, Roe vs. Wade,

To define Judicial Review, it is simply the power of federal courts to void acts of Congress that negatively conflict with the Constitution. This case creates the foundation of Judicial Review under Article III of the Constitution. To put into ramen terms, the Supreme Court announced that the courts may affirm an act of Congress null and void if it is at odds with the constitution. The case consisted of William Marbury, who just assumed form of justice of the peace for D.C. in the last hours of the Adam administration.

Judicial Review is the power of the courts to review the acts of the other branches of government and states to declare whether or not their acts are unconstitutional. The roots of judicial review lie in the separation of powers principle which was institutionalized in the 17th century, however, it wasn’t until a century later that the concept of judicial review arose from it. Through his writing of the 78th Federalist Paper, Alexander Hamilton was the first individual to propose the idea that the Constitution should in fact be enforced amongst the legislatures. Unfortunately, the concept of judicial review was not written into the Constitution, despite the underlying support behind the concept Hamilton provided. Alternately, the paradigm

In total there are ninety-four district courts that are staffed by almost seven hundred individuals. Along with the district courts is the federal court of appeals. They make important decisions about errors within the district courts. In the United States there are currently thirteen court of appeals. Among the many powers of the judicial branch the most important is the power of judicial review. Essentially, the federal courts can “refuse to apply a state or federal law because it, in their judgement violates the United States Constitution.” Judicial review in a way is like checks and balances because it allows one to make sure they are in line with the constitution. It is like a final check to ensure the constitution is being followed correctly. Judges have been granted the power to interpret the law and many question the validity in which they do so. The philosophies by which they judge are called judicial philosophies and include judicial restraint, strict constructionism, loose constructionism and judicial activism. Judicial restraint encourages judges to limit their power. Strict constructionism limits judicial

Judicial Review: The power enables the judicial branch to act as a check on the