Judicial Review : The United States

The Judicial Branch is the balancing factor of the Government. It is the listener of the people of the US and it decides on all matters regarding the people. It "interprets the nation's law" (World Book 141). Being able to interpret the law gives the Judicial branch a special kind of power. One of which the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch do not possess. The Judicial branch decides when a law has been broken, to what extent, and how to punish the criminal act. And that is what makes it the strongest branch.

John Griffith’s thesis asserted that the English judiciary comprises of judges who as a whole are of ‘a unifying attitude of mind, a political position, to protect and conserve certain values and institutions’. Before the Judicial

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 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

Judicial Review is one of the court's most important powers and arguably the most powerful one that this branch or any branch has. This is a power that allows the supreme court to make legislative and executive actions subject to review and possible invalidation. The power of Judicial Review was earned in the Supreme Court Case Marbury v. Madison. In this case it was decided that James Madison’s decisions to prevent William Marbury from taking office as justice of the peace was unconstitutional, this has extended the power and now created what is known as judicial review. This has continued to affect laws and acts presently such as in the case of United States v. Nixon when Nixon was denied the powers of absolute executive privilege due to

Our judicial branch is essential in the function of our current government and to make valid the constitutional rights of every citizen. In additional, the judicial branch has is established to make sure there is balance of power within the executive and the legislative branches. With this in mind and being a citizen of this country is important to know that the head of the judicial branch is a person that is well prepared and educated to make a rightful a judgement always. Correspondingly, is important to learn who the current Justices of the Supreme Court are and what are their qualifications. Recently, due to a given school assignment I was able to read more and learn more about our current Chief Justice of the United States and the Associate

The United States judicial branch was created by the founding fathers to help protect the rights, freedoms, and privileges of the citizens. Protection is achieved by the judicial branches’ power to approve the constitutionality and interpretation of laws. By interpreting the laws and constitutionality the judicial branch is exercising their power of judicial review. When exercising the power of judicial review judges either choose a role of judicial activism or a role of judicial restraint. This paper will include the debate of whether judges in the United States should be activists or restrained when interpreting and determining the constitutionality of laws.

I favor judicial restraint because It means that they can’t make new laws. This is so that they have to follow past rules and it makes it so that they can’t make new ones based on some of their personal beliefs. I think I am optimistic about America having a great future. I think we are on the right path and with a couple of good tweaks we can make a big step forward. America is really great right now but we are in decline so with a lot of support and the right president we can turn this country around. We are doing pretty good but things like our economy and other things need to be fixed due to horrible presidents in the past. I believe we can fix everything in America and become even better. I think we are all in this together as Americans

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.

Legislative branch checks and control the judicial branch. The Congress has some control over the judiciary and can limit the judicial review. In Article III of the Constitution is given the power of the Congress to organize the Court, write new laws, and amend the Constitution with ¾ of the state legislature. If the Congress disagrees with judicial interpretation of the Constitution, Congress can create a new law and replace the old one.

Judicial review is the court’s authority to examine an executive or legislative act and to invalidate that act if it is contrary to constitutional principles. “The power of courts of law to review the actions of the executive and legislative branches is called judicial review” (West’s, 2008). Though judicial review is usually associated with the U.S. Supreme Court, which has ultimate judicial authority, it is a power possessed by most federal and state courts of law in the United States. “The basis for judicial review goes back to Article 6, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution which is also known as the Supremacy Clause”(West’s, 2008). This clause of the U.S. Constitution says, state laws may not violate the U.S. Constitution and all state courts must uphold national law. State courts uphold national law through judicial review. Through judicial review, state courts determine whether or not state executive acts or state statutes are valid. They base

This essay will explore the changes that Article 263 TFEU has had to the accessibility of judicial review before the CJEU as well as assessing whether the reforms introduced were sufficient enough in improving a private parties ability to bring government decisions under scrutiny. In addition, the judgments of the Court in Inuit and Microban will be considered. This essay will analyse present criticisms of the definition set out in the two cases and the overall effect of the new article.

Some judges in their obiter dicta have declared their inclination to disregard the Parliament’s legislative objectives, and therefore limit parliamentary sovereignty if the rule of law is vulnerable or if the circumstances demand “a principle established on a different hypothesis of constitutionalism” . They have also suggested that, while the British Constitution is dominated by parliamentary sovereignty, “The rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based” . This represents a possibility of stretching the dominance of the rule of law in constitutional law so that it becomes more powerful than parliamentary sovereignty in the British Constitution .

In Li CJ’s judgment in A Solicitor v Law Society of Hong Kong [2008] 2 HKC 1, he commented in paragraph 9 that the “rigid and inflexible adherence by this Court to the previous precedents may unduly inhibit the proper development of the law and may cause injustice in individual cases. The great strength of the common law lies in its capacity to develop to meet the changing needs and circumstances of the society in which it functions.” In this essay, this statement would be discussed with reference to the role of the courts and their relationship to the legislature.

Judicial Review is basically an aspect of judicial power of the state which is exercised by the courts to determine the validity of a rule of law or an action of any agency of the state. The courts have the power of testing the validity of legislative as well as other governmental action with reference to the provisions of the constitution. The judiciary tries to undo the harm that is being done by the legislature and executive and they also try to provide every citizen what has been guaranteed by the constitution. Judicial review has a more technical significance in public law,