Judicial Review : The Supreme Court

The Judicial Review it helps to make sure that all new laws passed do not voglite the constitution. Or are rights as citizens. This power however is weekend by a slow to act congress. It is also strengthened by the changing opinions of the court judges. The job of the federal government is to lead but also protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens. Judicial review accomplishes this by insuring that laws are checked with the constitution.

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

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).

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

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 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

If the U.S. Supreme Court has the power to declare laws null and void, should this power clearly be stated in the Constitution rather than implied?

-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.

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

Throughout Federalist #78, Alexander Hamilton discusses the importance of having a judiciary branch and the power of judicial review.

Federalist No. 78 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton. It was written to analyze and justify the structure of the judiciary under the Constitution of the United States. Hamilton addressed the concerns of Anti-Federalists in regards to the power of the Judiciary. The Anti- Federalist believed the constitution made the judges too independent; implying that “There is no power above them, to control any of their decisions.” However, Hamilton viewed the Judicial Branch in a much inferior and less important role of all branches. Hamilton says, that the Judiciary branch of the proposed government would be the weakest of the three because it had "no influence over either the sword or the purse” This indicates that the Judicial branch has no control of

Judicial review, similar to many other topics in life, has both its pros and cons. Now, by taking stock of what these pros and cons are it is possible for a person to form his or her own opinion on whether the pros outweigh the cons or vice versa, but in order to properly sort out the pros and cons it is important to list out at the very least the major ones from each category, and carefully consider their connotations. The list of major pros based on historical use of judicial review is a good place to start because it will also give a baseline for the cons on this subject as well. Now, as the Marbury v. Madison case showed one pro that can be listed is judicial review helps ensure that Congress does not have the final say on congressional acts as judicial review can be used to consult the Constitutional laws

There are many different reasons a person can find themselves in a court as the defendant.

In the earliest years, people such as Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson had disagreements on how power should be held. The framers wanted to be sure that the states obeyed the federal government. During the last weeks of John Adams’ term he appointed a number of people to office. He appointed 3 people to the United States Supreme Court Justices, 16 people to the Circuit courts and 4 people to the District court's. So in end the judicial review is essential for the constitutional government because they can check if the laws are used correctly in the eyes of the constitution.