Judicial Roles: Case Analysis

The federal government, as you know, is made up of 3 branches. The three branches of government are legislative, executive, and judicial. According to page 197 in the history textbook it states, " Our national's judicial power resides in 'one Supreme Court' " this is known as the judicial branch. What the judicial branch does, the political significance of the judicial branch, and the relations with other branches are all important things to know about the judicial branch. The judicial branch is crucial to our government because it can declares actions of legislature unconstitutional.

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 witnesses stated that the sacks that Mr. Riff was charged with carrying that contained the money were issued to him at the poker game. Mr. Riff testified he grabbed the hammer to use as a security measure for him in order to protect his winnings. The Defense disputes Mr. Riff tossed the hammer away prior to arriving home and in no way meant to steal from the market. The Defense in this case exercised oral communication by exploiting the redundancy in this case. This was to establish that the eyewitness testimonies for the prosecution were incorrect and imperfection was found during the police investigation.

Together with, the Constitution of the United States likewise designed a strong government by establishing a national court system. This helped the government become more secure by having equal justice under law for every citizen including the president. In the document Powers of the Federal it presents the judicial powers and the supreme court. It states, “this branch interprets and ruled the actions of the other branches” (Document 2). This shows that the judicial branch has the ability to run each case according to the law it violated, without the influence of outside factors. Founding a national court system preserved and interpreted the law. Also, this demonstrates that having a court system help the government by equivalent laws enforce

The crime seeks to punish all legal principals to a crime equally regardless of the role each plays in the violation of the law. For instance, a person who acts as a "lookout" during the commission of robbery or burglary is as guilty as his/her counterpart who completes the crime (Hunt and Rutledge 64). In Santa Ana, California, a man was found guilty of planting methamphetamine and weapons inside the bed of a woman's car and making false reports to the police regarding the victim’s involvement in a crime. Kevin Brown committed the crime with the help of Jenifer Beale. Each of the two accomplices was sentenced to one year and six months in county

Our United States government is composed of three branches: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. These branches uphold checks and balances, as in each branch can check each other to keep the balance in power. For example, the Executive Branch can veto bills from the Legislative branch, and the Judicial branch can declare congress made laws unconstitutional. , The Legislative Branch can also check the Executive and Judicial Branches in many ways. These combined with other allowed checks keep the government balanced out and predominantly fair.

All of the branches of government were designed so that each branch would have equal power and would be able to have checks and balances on the other branches. The President leads the Executive Branch, which has the power to veto laws and give forgiveness for crime (Nowaczyk 1). The Judicial Branch consists of the Supreme Court which is the highest court in the land (The Judicial Branch 1). The Legislative Branch and Congress have the most power in government. Congress can make laws, Congress can declare war, and is basically in charge of all issues involving money.

It has also been suggested that judges could use video conferencing facilities from a different location in order to deal with a civil dispute rather than be physically present. This is not without its’ own set of challenges . It is implied that a party in a trial has the right to see a judge “struggling conscientiously with the detail of a case ” which is a “feature of the court system that cannot be discarded ”. In trying to minimise the physical aspect of the judge’s role in court seems to undermine the basic fundamental human rights mentioned in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which states that parties in a trial are entitled to a “fair and public hearing...” . This is because it seeks to reinforce the aspect of the courts moving towards a more ‘impersonal ’ and ‘nonhuman ’ approach to dealing with civil disputes.

There are different theories regarding the judicial branch and their power. Judicial activism is a belief in which the federal judiciary should use its powers to take an active role in checking the activities in Congress, state legislatures, and administrative agencies. The belief is that the judicial branch should step in when they exceed their authority. Judicial restraint is a belief in which the courts should defer to the decisions made by the legislative and executive branch. This belief has to do with the legislative and executive branch being elected by the people. A strict interpretation of the constitution is sticking to the letter of the law. A loose interpretation is expanding the context and purpose of the law.

Judicial Review is the act of which gives the Supreme Court the power to determine what the constitution means. It gives the supreme court the power to evaluate the decisions of the congress and overturn them if needed. Judicial review was emphasized for the first time in the well-known case of Marbury vs. Madison. In this case, in the year 1803, William Marbury was appointed as the Justice of the Peace in the district of Columbia by president John Adams; however the secretary of the state, John Marshal failed to deliver this commission in time before the end of John Adam’s term; the new secretary of state James Madison refused to deliver the commission. Marbury reacted by suing James Madison in the supreme court, requesting a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court found that while Madison should have delivered the commission to Marbury; their court was in no place to provide the writ of mandamus as this should be appointed in a different court, according to Article 3 of section 13 of the Judiciary act in the constitution of 1789 “The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” This case was implied under the “in all other cases” which meant that Marbury should have gone to the district court instead of directly going to the Supreme Court. While in this case, the supreme court

In case B “hiding a Suspect” George Teller is an anthropologist conducting research on an American Indian reservation for two years. Teller has dilemma in the story. From this story, Teller’s dilemma is “should he or should he not take Joe to the bus station? and in either case, if questioned by the Tribal Police, should he tell the Tribal Police he had seen Joe?” It is because murder has happened by the home party performed with eleven people (six man and five women), that a dilemma of Teller has happened. The story is that Ted began showing his “quick draw” while doing, Mile began teasing him. And then, Ted was putting the pistol against Mikes forehead. Therefore, police arrested Ted and tribal judge also charged him two years with involuntary

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

Judicial Review is the power given to the justices of the Supreme Court in which judges have the power to decide and interpret whether a law is unconstitutional or not. Chief Justice John Marshall initiated the Supreme Court’s right to translate or interpret the constitutional law in 1803 following the case of Marbury v. Madison, which declared the Supreme Courts as the main interpreters of the constitutional law. Marbury v. Madison became one of the most significant Supreme Court decisions in U.S. history. Many historical philosophers would find some difficulty in visualizing a government set up to limit the power of itself, but others would argue that this form of government best work for the people, and not against them. The remedy of the Constitution by the Supreme Court as a living document that is able to be translated differently over time for the good of the people has as many skeptics as it does supporters. But, if we do not allow the Supreme Court to translate the Constitution who then, should the people chose to do such an important job. In this research paper I will discuss on how judicial review will help newly create constitutional courts to gain independence.

     Under Article III of the Constitution the judicial branch was established, but rather implicit in proportion to the other two branches of government. This ambiguity allocates various opportunities for interpretation of judicial power. In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton addresses the role of the judiciary branch within the federal government in regards to political immunity of judges through life tenure and contribution to checks and balances through power or judicial review. Chief Justice John Marshall, in his ruling of Marbury v. Madison, established the principle of judicial review advocated by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. Originally designated as the weakest of the three branches in

The fact remains that they have a persuasive value and command respect. The Rio declaration is the product of hectic discussion out of the leaders of the nation of the world and it was after negotiations between the develop and the developing countries that an almost consensus declaration had been sorted out. Environment is an international problem having no frontiers creating trans- boundary effects. In this field every nation has to cooperate and contribute and for this reason the Rio declaration would serve as a great binding force and to create discipline among the nations while dealing with environment problems.