The Issue Of Judicial Review

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

Today I was able to have a quick interview with the honorable Mrs.Salvarez. I asked her a few questions about what she does in the government and if she could clarify some things.

I. The United States Supreme Court receives many appeals, but it hears and rules on a small percentage of cases each year. Numerous factors influence the actions of the court, both in deciding to hear a case and in the decisions it hands down.

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 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?

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

However, the only way a regular citizen is involved in the Federal judicial system is as jurors. This can take the form of either a grand jury or a trial (or petit) jury. On a grand jury, a panel of citizens hears evidence presented by a prosecutor and decides whether or not to indict a person accused of one or more crimes

The United States Federal system of government has 3 branches that each have different functions when it comes to governing the people within the country. The Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches of government are all powerful, just at different times and in different situations. Checks and Balances were created and implemented so that each branch cannot have too much power.

When the Founding Fathers constructed up the Constitution, they made it very clear that there would be three distinct branches of the government. These three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial, would all play different roles and have to work together in order to make our country run. While the legislative and executive branches clearly uphold a representative democracy, it has been argued that the judicial branch, containing only unelected officers does not, failing to be anything close to democratic. Even though the Judicial Branch is the least democratic, it plays a vital role in preserving democracy.

The power of judicial review says that judges or people of the court have jurisdiction to decide whether a law or any others acts by government is constitutional. Judicial review started back when John Adams was serving his term as president. It applied to the Marbury v. Madison case in 1803. This case came about because at the end of John Adams he appointed 42 new justices of peace, but the new President Thomas Jefferson overlooked the commissions and decided not to send out the letters to the appointed justices. This led to one of the Federalist appointees, William Marbury to file a lawsuit against Thomas Jefferson’s secretary of state. Jefferson’s secretary of state at the time was James Madison. Marbury wanted the documents delivered so

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.

The power to strike down Acts of Parliament is defined as the power to declare legislation invalid because it is unconstitutional. This paper will critically assess sections 3 and 4 of the HRA 1998 by defining them, reviewing case law surrounding their use, and by evaluating the powers that they give to the judiciary. By doing so, it will demonstrate that section 3 gives judges powers that are not significantly different from the power to strike down Acts of Parliament, whereas section 4 does not.