Judicial activism and judicial restraint are two opposing philosophies when it comes to the Supreme Court justices' interpretations of the United States Constitution; justices appointed by the President to the Supreme Court serve for life,and thus whose decisions shape the lives of "We the people" for a long time to come.
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 Supreme Court often oversteps its perceived legal sovereignty when using judicial review. Article III of the Constitution solely vests the courts the “judicial power of the United States” never mentioning the power of judicial review. The judiciary’s duty, according to the law of the land, is “to interpret the laws, not scan the authority of the lawgiver” (Gibson, J.). The judiciary has not followed a strict interpretation of the constitution; rather, it has encroached on the power of the legislative branch and the sanctity of the separation of powers. If the Constitution “were to come into collision with an act of the legislature” (Gibson, J.), the Constitution would take precedent, but it is
Libya is a country east of Egypt with just over 6,000,000 people. Libya’s first ruler was King Idris I, he was elected after World War II when the people were looking for a new leader. He was Libya's only King. He established embassies with many large countries such as the U.S. and also allowed U.S. military to come in to restore and maintain the rights of the Libyan people in his first decade as a king. After King Idris I died in 1969, Libya fell apart. A new ruler, Gaddafi, began destroying Libya and its government. In 1972 tensions increased so much between the American and Libyan governments the American ambassador was removed from the embassy in Tripoli. In 1979 all American embassy workers were removed after an attack. In 2011 the people
Judicial review should remain the sole prerogative of the courts, which only a constitutional amendment can nullify or alter. Furthermore, the courts should always be guided in its exercise by judicial restraint.
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
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
-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.
Courts impact policy through how they interpret and apply the law. How the federal court wields their
There have been many complaints and theories of how the Supreme Court has a tendency to act as a "supra-legislature" (Woll 153). It is proposed that the Supreme Court takes the
The judicial branch, in its conception as outlined in Article III of the constitution was designated the “power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases (The White House)”. However, since the ratification of the constitution, much like the other two branches of government, the judicial branch has also experienced an expanded delegation of authority and power. This notion is evidenced in the 1803 decision on the case of Marbury v. Madison where the Supreme Court asserted its power of judicial review by ”blocking last-minute appointments by outgoing President John Adams (Chegg)” by declaring that these actions should not be permitted because the supreme court, under chief justice john Marshall declared them unconstitutional(Cornell). This set forth a very powerful precedent for judicial review, one that continues to play a critical role in political discourse today. Although the evolution of the judiciary commenced following the fallout of the 1803 decision, the courts have delegated to themselves a controversial role as policy-makers in response to societal demands and stresses placed upon the political system specifically during and after the civil rights movement that occurred in the United States during the 20th century. This expanded role into the realm of actual policy making is derived from the belief that the constitution is indeed a living and flexible document that must retain the capability for change. As the
I believe Judicial Activism should be removed from the Supreme Court. The Original definition of Judicial Activism is defined as a philosophy of judicial decision-
Many of America’s democratic principles are drawn from the constitution like the checks and balances system. The supreme court’s power of judicial review was not mentioned in the constitution. It evolved following the Marbury Vs Madison case and was not granted by the constitution. The Supreme Court therefore does not have the authority to carry out judicial review and become a quasi-legislative branch because the constitution granted this power to Congress.
The Supreme Court’s largest responsibility rests in its power of judicial review. The Supreme Court has the final say in all legal matters concerning the Constitution. The Supreme Court has the authority “to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court 's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution” (The Court and Constitutional Interpretation n.p.). This means that anything passed by Congress, or mandated by the President can be struck down if the Court deems it unconstitutional. The Court can also strike down laws made by local and state governments if they violate the Constitution ("The Role of the Supreme Court” n.p.). Judicial review has been important in making sure that a citizen’s individual rights, stated in the Bill of Rights, are protected. There is no express consent written in the Constitution to grant the Court the power of judicial review. The idea of it, however, was around before the Constitution was written. Before the formal establishment of the Court in 1789, state courts had exercised it by overturning several laws passed by their legislatures that conflicted with their state constitutions (The Court and Constitutional Interpretation n.p.). It was not until the 1803 Supreme