...The Supreme Court and Judicial Review Should the Supreme Court's power of judicial review be strictly limited by a constitutional amendment? Yes, the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review should be strictly limited to the constitution; because their judicial power is in all cases, in law and equity, arising under the constitution. Meaning they are over stepping their initial jurisdiction and have been given the power to have judicial reviews, even though it’s unconstitutional. The only power the Supreme Court is supposed to have is; all cases affecting ambassadors, or the public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party in the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction as stated in article III section 2 of the constitution. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the weakest of the three branches of government. The legislative, and executive branches are supposed to control the judiciary branch, even the states are supposed to have more say than the court. But they have been made more powerful and they are telling the legislative and executive branches what to do. There is no such system of checks and balances any more that protect the states and people when most government branches, are acting in cohorts with one another, eroding and destroying the rights and powers of the states and we the people. Even if the system was working right; who is watching and how will they stop the court from being unconstitutional? Every time the court holds judicial...
Words: 495 - Pages: 2
...Judicial review is the power of the courts to review acts of other branches of government and the states. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court the power to interpret the constitution and to ensure that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government coincide with the constitution. The concept of judicial review was established in the case of Marbury v. Madison. Actions that the Supreme Court deems unconstitutional become null and void. In the early 1800s, the Supreme Court established its power of judicial review with the case of Marbury v. Madison. This court case centered around the political disagreements that arose in the weeks before Thomas Jefferson was to enter office and President John Adams was to leave. President Thomas Jefferson and Congress overturned Adams’ judiciary appointments as wells the Congressional act that had increased the number of...
Words: 461 - Pages: 2
...Supreme Court justices are just politicians in black robes Supreme court justices are politicians. They are politicians alongside their duties of judges of the highest court in the land. The most basic definition of a politician is, a person that achieves a position of policy making over an organized community. Judges, in theory, should be fair, unbiased, neutral, impartial and not based or linked to any political party or movement. However, decisions made by the Supreme Court judges have had huge political significance. While it’s not the standard in lower courts, the United States Supreme Court is forced to make political and judicial decisions. A judicial decision is based on the question was a law broken. However, because the Supreme Court is the highest court of the land, they also must make political decisions some of which have been more powerful that the actual laws congress had written. The Supreme Court is in charge of making sure congress and the president don’t overstep their authority, and to do this job of keeping these branches accountable it would be impossible for the justices to not be politicians yielding real power. One of the examples of the supreme courts political power the court case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). Estelle Griswold was the executive director of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut; she and Dr. Buxton of Yale Medical School opened a clinic in Waterbury and after only serving 10 patients Griswold and Buxton were arrested and convicted...
Words: 2189 - Pages: 9
...Judicial Review The power of judicial review allows the judiciary to review the acts of other branches of government as well as the state. Judicial review is important because it admits the Judicial Branch to check the power of the Executive and Legislative Branches, making them to abide by the rules of the Constitution. The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Federal Judicial System as well as the Marbury V. Madison case, which formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States. The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the three levels of the federal court system. At the bottom of the system is the federal district court. The district court is a state of federal trial court. One could appeal their case to the circuit court if they were unhappy with the district courts verdict. The circuit court, or now known as the court of appeals, was first created to work as a trial court for important cases. After 1891, the circuit courts started to focus only on reviewing the findings of the lower courts. The last level of the federal court system is the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the United States. It consists of nine justices and it ranks over all of the other courts in the nation. In 1803, The Marbury v. Madison case declared the power of judicial review. This was the first time the Supreme Court overturned federal legislation. In return, The Marbury v. Madison case greatly strengthened the power of the judicial...
Words: 375 - Pages: 2
...John Marshall and the Judicial Review happened back in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s. The judicial review was passed through Congress on 1801. John Marshall, James Madison, William Marbury and Thomas Jefferson took part of the judicial act during this time. All of this discussion and argument happened in the Supreme Court in Washington D.C. The book I used was Experience History: To 1877. Davidson ET. Al 2013, McGraw-Hill. The reason is to describe how John Marshall and the Judicial Review opened a place among the other branches. The Legislative, and the Executive branches didn’t want the judicial branch to have more power them. Power that the Supreme Court could have to review over the laws and to say if such law was unconstitutional....
Words: 1324 - Pages: 6
...organization. There has to be an understanding of law by learning it, common knowledge, upbringing, and from society as a whole understanding the consequences of its actions. State and Federal courts have very different structures. According to "United States Courts" (2014), " The state court system use the Constitution and laws of each state to establish the state court with the Supreme Court being the highest court, state courts have courts that handle specific matters, if a decision is made and the parties are dissatisfied they may take their case to the Court of Appeals, parties have the option to ask the highest state court to hear the case, only certain cases are eligible for review by U.S. Supreme Court. The Federal Court System invest the judicial power of the United States in the federal court meaning it specifically creates the U.S. Supreme Court and gives Congress the authority to create the lower federal courts. Congress has used this power to establish the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals, the 94 U.S. District Courts, the U.S. Court of Claims, and the U.S. Court of International Trade. U.S. Bankruptcy Courts handle bankruptcy cases. Magistrate Judges handle some District Court matters. Parties dissatisfied with a decision of a U.S. District Court, the U.S. Court of Claims, and/or the U.S. Court of International Trade may appeal to a U.S....
Words: 758 - Pages: 4
...A supreme court is the highest court within the hierarchy of many legal jurisdictions. Other descriptions for such courts include court of last resort, instance court, judgment court, apex court, and highest court of appeal. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts. However, not all highest courts are named as such. Civil law states do not tend to have singular highest courts. Additionally, the highest court in some jurisdictions is not named the "Supreme Court", for example, the High Court of Australia; this is because decisions by the High Court could formerly be appealed to the Privy Council. In a few places, the court named the "Supreme Court" is not in fact the highest court; examples include the New York Supreme Court, which is superseded by the New York Court of Appeals, and the former Supreme Court of Judicature of England and Wales. Some countries have multiple "supreme courts" whose respective jurisdictions have different geographical extents, or which are restricted to particular areas of law. In particular, countries with a federal system of government typically have both a federal supreme court, and supreme courts for each member state, with the former having jurisdiction over the latter only to the extent that the federal constitution extends...
Words: 4621 - Pages: 19
...weeks after John Adams lost his bid for re-election to Thomas Jefferson in 1800, the Federalist Congress increased the number of circuit courts. Adams placed Federalist judges in these new positions. One of the justices of the peace, William Marbury, filed a writ of mandamus demanding Secretary of State James Madison deliver the appointments. The Supreme Court led by John Marshall denied the request citing part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 as unconstitutional. This historic court case established the concept of Judicial Review or the ability of the Judiciary Branch to declare a law unconstitutional. This case brought the Judicial Branch of the government on a more even power basis with the Legislative and Executive Branches. The historic court case Marbury versus Madison accomplished this end thereby setting the precedent for numerous historic decisions in the future (Marbury verses Madison, 1803). On his last day in office, President John Adams named forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Columbia under the Organic Act. The Organic Act was an attempt by the Federalists to take control of the federal judiciary before Thomas Jefferson took office. The commissions were signed by President Adams and sealed by acting Secretary of State John Marshall (who later became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and author of this opinion), but they were not delivered before the expiration of Adams’s term as president. Thomas Jefferson refused...
Words: 3750 - Pages: 15
...The idea that Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution is the supreme law of the land is a very recent contention. There is a distinction between the Constitution and Constitutional law. The Constitution is the fundamental law, while Constitutional law is the body of law that resulted from the Supreme Court. After William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia were sworn into their new offices, President Reagan closed his speech with a quote by Daniel Webster, “… Hold on to the Constitution of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands—what has happened once in 6,000 years may never happen again.” Which deems the constitution a stable document that does not sway as much as Constitutional Law. Hamilton, Jefferson, and all the Founding Fathers recognized that the Constitution is the supreme and ultimate expression of the will of the American people. The Supreme Court’s decisions are not supreme over the Constitution. The answers the Supreme Court gives are very important to the stability of the law so necessary for good government. Article VI of the Constitution, says that “The Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land…” The Constitution created the three branches of government with limited powers to each. The notion of “judicial supremacy” is contrary to the framers’ understanding of the judicial role. The power of judicial review does not imply judicial supremacy. When the Constitution...
Words: 650 - Pages: 3
...The Power of the Supreme Court Cannot be Justified in a Democracy (45) The US Supreme Court has a number of powers. These include the power to declare acts of Congress, the executive or state legislatures unconstitutional through the power of judicial review. The supreme court justices are also given the power to interpret the constitution when making decisions, again, through their power of judicial review. It is arguable that it is essential for the supreme court to have such powers in order to allow the American democracy to flourish. However, there is much evidence to suggest that the supreme court holds too much power for an unelected body, thus hindering democracy. The ambiguity of the constitution means that there is much room for interpretation. Since interpreting the constitution is the role of the supreme court, the supreme court is often seen as a quasi legislative body. This is because through its interpretations, particularly those made by loose contructionists, the supreme court acts as an additional legislature. It's decisions can have the same effect as passing legislation. For example, the Grutter vs Bollinger decision (2008) involved the courts laying down a time frame for which affirmative action can be deemed necessary. This effectively acted as a piece of legislation even though it did not pass through Congress. This can be seen as being problematic and potentially damaging for a Democracy. Justices are unelected, they therefore lack legitimacy and should...
Words: 913 - Pages: 4
...Each branch was meant to keep the other in check and make sure that they did not abuse their powers. The branches of government were as follow the lawmaking, executive and the jurisdictive. The constitution started out has simple two page document because the founding fathers couldn’t agree on much of anything. When the framers first thought of the Supreme Court they were thinking of a branch of government that would have supreme power. This is evident by the way each branch is laid out in the establishment. Each branch of government has its power expounded to them in detail. When it came to the court the description of power became vague. Some scholars believe that the founding fathers didn’t give the Supreme Court as many restrictions because they wanted a court of judge that would rule and intrepid the constitution as they would. The constitution was never meant to govern the people of America it was meant to rule and control them. The founding fathers picked people for the court that had the same backgrounds as them. According to the how the constitution is worded the framers gave the court the right to make law based on thing un for seen by them. This means that they have the right to make laws on thing that are being invented and used by Americans today The responsibilities and limitations of each branch of government are set forth in the constitution. For example specific powers are granted to the congress concerning their jurisdiction and job details. For the legislative...
Words: 3569 - Pages: 15
...Preface Throughout the following paper, I will make an argument as to what the essential characteristics of President-Elect Donald Trump’s Supreme Court Justice nominee are. The characteristics presented will be supported by several popular and several scholarly sources, which explain why these attributes are so valuable to a Supreme Court Justice. As the rhetor, a Republican, and a conservative, I am arguing for the sake of Republican and conservative values, both of which have created the United States into the prosperous and universally admired nation it is today. The issue at hand is that the Supreme Court of the United States is divided between four liberal and four conservative justices. The fate of the balance of the Supreme Court lies...
Words: 1848 - Pages: 8
...Boston College International and Comparative Law Review Volume 31 | Issue 2 Article 4 5-1-2008 India's New Constitutionalism: Two Cases That Have Reshaped Indian Law Milan Dalal Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Foreign Law Commons Recommended Citation Milan Dalal, India's New Constitutionalism: Two Cases That Have Reshaped Indian Law, 31 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 257 (2008), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol31/iss2/4 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact nick.szydlowski@bc.edu. INDIA’S NEW CONSTITUTIONALISM: TWO CASES THAT HAVE RESHAPED INDIAN LAW Milan Dalal* Abstract: As a nation of over one billion people and the world’s largest democracy, India is sometimes confronted with situations in which its democratic institutions clash. Under the Indian Constitution, legislation concerning land reform is placed in a special category designed to immunize it from judicial scrutiny. This scheme, known as the Ninth Schedule, has been abused by legislators seeking electoral benefit. Simultaneously, the country has been rocked by a series of public corruption scandals. As Parliament has...
Words: 7761 - Pages: 32
...time the Supreme Court met on Broad Street in New York City in February in 1790 to its current address in 1 First St NE in Washington DC. With this essay I will simply lay out the role and the pathway of the Court to become the arbiter of the existence and scope of individual rights. I will do my best to simply lay out the facts of the evolution of the court and to not put my political ideals into this paper. I will navigate specific cases, and adopted positions that enhanced or undermined its legitimacy as well as its authority. To give a layout of the Court in the Constitution is in Article III section 1. which “ The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from...
Words: 614 - Pages: 3
...Marbury v. Madison On February 24, 1803 Chief Justice John Marshall and the rest of the Supreme Court decided on the seemingly insignificant case of Marbury v. Madison. While ruling the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, Judicial Review was established. Granting the Supreme Court the power to rule acts of the Legislative and/or Executive Branch of government unconstitutional, hence serving as a landmark case that further legitimatized the Judicial Branch as a separate, but balanced branch of government. Marbury v. Madison has been used as a very important precedent throughout our history with 165 acts of Congress deemed unconstitutional as of 2010. In the Presidential election of 1800, the Democratic-Republic party of Thomas Jefferson defeated the Federalist party of John Adams. With the loss of the election, the Federalist Party began to diminish. Although losing the presidency, John Adams and his party was still in control for a couple months. In an attempt to maintain the Federalist Parties presence, John Adams appointed a number of Judges. All of these appointees were properly commissioned, but John Adams Secretary of State failed to deliver three commissions. With one of these commissions being a man by the name of William Marbury. Thomas Jefferson began his Presidency on March 5, 1801. After learning of these Federalists appointed by John Adams, Thomas Jefferson ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison not to deliver the remaining commissions. With William...
Words: 985 - Pages: 4
