Judicial Review : The Supreme Court

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

Among the three branches of government, the branch that had received the least amount of attention was the Judiciary. Compared to the other two branches, the Judiciary is rarely discussed in great detail. Federalists like Alexander Hamilton argue that this is because the Judicial branch has significantly the least amount of power. However, Brutus of the Anti-Federalist party argues that the Judiciary’s power of constitutional review can impact the power of the other the branches. While Hamilton and Brutus agree that constitutional review led by the Judiciary is necessary, they disagree on the extent of its power and whether or not it needs to be controlled.

A supreme court with the power of judicial review ensures that all laws are constitutional. This is a significant factor for a country like Xlandia because they are not accustomed to constitutional rights. The Supreme Court will guide the Xlandians, showing them what is constitutional and not. We believe that the Supreme Court Judges should not run for their positions, rather be selected. An imperative sub-idea to the selection of the Supreme Court judges derives from the United States of America, where a group of potential Supreme Court judges is selected by the president, and the senate votes to approve the nominees. We believe this is not only a necessity for a land like Xlandia, but for countries all over the world. It is crucial that Judges are not influenced by the world of politics and spend all of their time solely on the law.As a group we agree that it is crucial to not only have one opinion on who is a part of the Supreme Court. This is why we have suggested that the president chooses a select few, and the senate votes from these chosen people. In addition to this, it is necessary for the Supreme Court to be independent and have the power of judicial review. Judicial Review is checking the constitutional validity of a legislative act. It is crucial for Xlandia to allow the Supreme Court to have complete power over judicial review (because they are not accustomed to constitutional rights). All

The US Supreme Court has a number of powers. These include the power to declare acts of Congress, the executive or state legislatures unconstitutional through the power of judicial review. The supreme court justices are also given the power to interpret the constitution when making decisions, again, through their power of judicial review. It is arguable that it is essential for the supreme court to have such powers in order to allow the American democracy to flourish. However, there is much evidence to suggest that the supreme court holds too much power for an unelected body, thus hindering democracy.

First and foremost, I strongly agree with judicial review and believe that is it very necessary. The supreme court is in my opinion the most impartial group of people in government and as stated in the video, they seldom use their power to declare laws unconstitutional because they want to remain that way. I believe that although they are not granted such powers in the constitution, that because they have yet to abuse them, then there is no reason that we should do away with them. Judicial review is also only about the legality of a proposed law rather than how a justice feels about it personally and given that, I trust that they will uphold the constitution and do what is right. The only disadvantage that I can possibly think of is if the

For over two centuries, the most important law document in America is the Constitution. More importantly, among the three branches, the judicial branch has one of the most important jobs in the government: to check and review the laws established by the executive branch and legislative branch. Moreover, the judicial branch’s job is to interpret and apply the law in the government, but it is also the only branch with the power of Judicial Review, which the judicial branch decide whether a law or action is consistent with fundamental laws such as the Constitution. This paper will be exploring the history behind the paramount case of Marbury v. Madison, 1803 and its decision that established the power of Judicial Review, the importance and relevancy of Judicial Review in modern government through the case of Ladue v. Gilleo, 1994, and lastly the criticisms of the powers and duties behind Judicial Review.

The controversy of judicial review which at extreme points, is called judicial activism, is a concept new to India. Judicial review can be defined as the judiciary, in the exercise of its own independence, checking and cross checking the working of the other organs of the government, while trying to uphold the ideal of ‘the rule of law’. Judicial activism more reformist in character is often confused with judicial review. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, judicial activism is “a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions, usually with the suggestion that adherents of this philosophy tend to find constitutional

Continuing his writing of Federalist Number seventy-eight, Hamilton states that the Judiciary branch of the proposed government would ultimately be the weakest of the three branches, due to the fact that it had neither force nor will, but merely judgement. Federalist Number 78 quotes Montesquieu: "Of the three powers (…), the judiciary is next to nothing" (Hamilton). Because of the courts' weakness, Federalist Number seventy-eight does not see the possibility of corruption as a result of the use of judicial review as an issue. There was little concern that the judiciary might be able to overpower the other political branches. Since Congress controls the nation’s flow of money and the President holds the power to control the military, the courts did not have nearly the same amount of power and influence from a strict view of constitutional design. The Judiciary also has a need to depend on the executive and legislative branches to uphold its judgments, thus making it the least powerful. While the Executive and Legislative branches are elected by the people, members of the Judicial Branch are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The power given to courts to interpret the law, called jurisdiction, is limited for the judicial branch to federal and constitutional laws.

Judicial review is a process that allows the courts to determine legality of decision made by a public authority, and in some cases, overrule those decisions. In essence, Judicial review is a part of the separation of powers as it allows the judiciary to exercise control over the executive branch of government. The rationale behind a judicial review is to be able to review the decisions of the government in order to maintain an order of checks and balances under the rule of law. The courts’ justification for a judicial review is that they are giving effect to the true function of a democratic parliament of ensuring that the power it grants to the government including public authorities is exercised legally, reasonably, and fairly. In other words, if a public authority did not exercise their powers in such manner, it is to be considered acting ultra vires or beyond the powers granted by parliament. As a result, a claim has to be made in accordance with Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules to challenge the lawfulness of an enactment, decision, action, or omission with relation to the exercise of a public function. A claim for judicial review is a procedure whereby an individual or pressure group seeking to challenge the lawfulness of public action applies to the Administrative Court (which is part of the High Court) to determine whether the action was lawful, and asks the court to grant one, or a combination of remedies. These remedies include quashing order

The composition of the United States government holds many expressed, implied, and reserved powers that radiates vast roles and complexities throughout. However, through a system that checks and balances, power and roles within the U.S. government has been primarily placed within three (3) branches: The Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, and Judicial Branch. In order to offer a separation of power, each branch is responsible for their roles within the government. Aside from specific responsibilities, each branch is responsible for enforcing a system of checks and balances, so that, one specific branch does not obtain too much power. Although structurally influenced by the United States Congress, the judicial branch, specifically the Supreme Court, is the supreme law of the land and argues the constitutionality of issues and laws. The “final say” of constitutional issues, and the role the Supreme Court plays in the “final say” has largely contributed to the debate regarding the power, if any, the judicial branch has of these constitutional issues. However, through a brief analysis of power and authority the Supreme Court has on constitutional issues, it is evident that the judicial branch does not have the “final say” of constitutional issues. Rather, the judicial branch plays are large part in setting up the framework towards finality.

Judicial Review is only available where public powers or duties are being exercised. It is not available for Private Law decisions. The basis for Judicial Review comes from the Separation of Powers doctrine, specifically at a Federal level Chapters I, II and III of the Constitution. The Administrative Decision (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) was enacted to simply the procedure for seeking Judicial Review of Commonwealth matters, however not all administrative actions are covered and the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) is still relevant. The State of Victoria has similar legislation, the Administrative Law Act 1978. Judicial Review will only look at the legality of the decision, not any fact finding or factual conclusions.

The area of law in which this question is concerned is judicial review. Judicial review can be defined as ‘… the means by which the Courts control the exercise of Governmental powers.’ The Courts will look at the way in which a decision was made, not the decision itself, to find out if any powers have been abused.

The judicial review is one of the very important contributions of the USA to the political theory. The origin of the judicial review has been result of a judicial decision and the continuance

Judicial review is a great weapon in the hands of judges. It comprises the power of a court to hold unconstitutional and unenforceable any law or order based upon such law or any other action by a public authority which is inconsistent or in conflict with the basic law of the land. In fact, the study of constitutional law may be described as a study of the doctrine of judicial review in action. The courts have power to strike down any law, if they believe it to be unconstitutional.

When I decided to take this class they’re where a couple of things I wanted to learn more about. The court system was one of them. I’ve watched the court shows on T.V. and thought at some point that this is how our court system works. It wasn’t until my older cousin went into law school and was explain to me how some of these things work. Such as the different level of courts, and the different types of judges in the government.