Write An Essay On The History Of The Supreme Court

The late 1700s and early 1800s was a critical time period in American history in which our newly independent nation was beginning to lay down the groundwork for how the country would run. During this time, America was in its infancy and its crucial first steps would dictate how the nation would either walk, run, or retreat. John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the Unites States, was a highly important and influential political figure whose decisions forever molded the future of the American judicial system. Like many other great political figures, much of John Marshall’s influence can be attributed to timing; he emerged just as the United States Constitution came into existence.

In America’s time there have been many great men who have spent their lives creating this great country. Men such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson fit these roles. They are deemed America’s “founding fathers” and laid the support for the most powerful country in history. However, one more man deserves his name to be etched into this list. His name was John Marshall, who decided case after case during his role as Chief Justice that has left an everlasting mark on today’s judiciary, and even society itself. Through Cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he established the Judicial Branch as an independent power. One case in particular, named Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), displayed his

The United States Constitution is one of the most important documents to the citizens of the United States. It is known as the supreme law of

All in all, the authors of the Constitution were very smart and new what was ahead for the country. They made the Constitution descriptive and revisable so that the country could always stay on the right track. Therefore, the founding fathers’ have had a great impact on the

In Marbury v. Madison, he led the Court in striking down an act of Congress that was in conflict with the Constitution, legitimizing the doctrine of judicial review. Over the course of his thirty-four year term, Marshall oversaw numerous landmark cases, his decisions in which played an undeniably critical role in the early development of American law. Thanks to his firm hand and consistent principles, he was able to secure the institutional power of the Supreme Court in the face of staunch Jeffersonian opposition—affirming its place as an equal among the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

Marshall complained that the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land” and that the Supreme Court ultimately has the final say so when it comes to evaluating the meaning of the Constitution. Marshall states, “ lt is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” To present Marshall’s initial plea at hand, Marshall argues that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. In Marshall 's perspective, Congress could not present the Supreme Court with the power to issue an order granting Marbury his commission. Only the Constitution could do so, and the document said nothing about the Supreme Court having the power to issue such an order. Thus, the Supreme Court could not force Jefferson and Madison to appoint Marbury, because it did not have the power to do so.

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 establishment of one of the most influential powers of the Supreme Court--the power of judicial review-- and the development of the judicial branch can be attributed to Marshall’s insightful interpretation of the Constitution ("The Marshall Court”).

The current Supreme Court membership is comprised of nine Supreme Court Justices. One of which is the Chief Justice and the other eight are the Associate Justices. The Justices are Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., and Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr.

Also commonly referred to as The Steel Seizure Case, it was a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the power of the President of the United States to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the US Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress. The Majority decision was that the President had no power to act except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.

If Marshall’s actions were iconic, then after the Marbury v. Madison case, he would have been credited with the creation of judicial review. In reality, Marshall’s decision of allowing the courts to review the decisions of the legislative and executive branches was seen “as only a step in the continuous clarification of the theory of judicial function”(Clinton 117). So this supposed creator of a pivotal Judicial component was only seen as a stepping stone. Through the remainder of Marshall’s career as Chief Justice, no one revisited his thoughts on the Marbury v. Madison case, until his successor, Roger Taney, did in Dred Scott v. Sanford. Roger Taney seemed to have the same viewpoints as Marshall, always trying to keep the checks and balances intact and equal. He kept this dedication through the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, using judicial review to rule the Missouri Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional. Strangely, “Marbury’s importance as a precedent for judicial review of legislation was never mentioned by the Court”(Clinton 119). If Marbury v. Madison was such a pivotal case, then it would

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 view of originalism to interpret the Constitution is the correct view. Scalia’s view on interpreting the Constitution through Originalism is correct because it limits the power of the judges so they can not exceed the powers given to them without infringing upon the rights given to the people, it provides a way for changes with the amendment process, and provides a structural foundation for the basis of our country. Originalism is the view that says we should interpret the Constitution based on what it was originally meant to mean. This does not mean we have to go back to older times and have things like they did back then, but it means we should try to stick to our core values that our Founding Fathers based this country on.

The U.S Constitution was written by James Madison and was ratified on July 21, 1788. Ever since people had trouble determining how it should be interpreted. When judges interpret the constitution, they are interpreting new facts to an established law that has been given meaning and has a historical background. Many people argue that it should be read how it was written who are known as Originalists. Then there are people who believe that the Constitution evolves as society does and they are known as Living Constitutionalists. Also, some feel that the goal is not do determine whether the constitution should be determined originally or as a living document, but to give meaning on the basis of facts. In my paper I will discuss arguments on how the Constitution should be read, whether it be from the Originalists or the Living Constitutionalist’s point of view, and why Living Constitutionalism is better. As society evolves, there are new and more difficult problems that occur, and they cannot be solved by reading the exact text of the Constitution which makes Living Constitutionalism better.

The originalist believed that “to determine the meaning of a particular constitutional phrase, the Court should look to the intentions of the founders” (Sidlow & Henschen, 329). However, this approach was a little stiff because the drafters viewed the issues with the thinking of that time. The United States has experienced the Civil War, the World War and a plenty of movements that strove for various rights toward the African American, female, homosexual and some other groups. It has become one of the most open-minded countries in the world. So