Does The Supreme Court Abuse Its Power? Essay

This branch, however, does not have all the power. There is a system put into place by the founding fathers called checks and balances. This system was though up with one goal in mind, to allow near equal flow of power

The Judicial Review it helps to make sure that all new laws passed do not voglite the constitution. Or are rights as citizens. This power however is weekend by a slow to act congress. It is also strengthened by the changing opinions of the court judges. The job of the federal government is to lead but also protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens. Judicial review accomplishes this by insuring that laws are checked with the constitution.

In the Marbury Vs. Madison’s case Justice John Marshall represented the case and I strongly believe that his points were solid and worth to be granted true and rational. John Marshall’s argument is that the acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution are not laws and therefore are not progressed into law to the courts, and ultimately the judicial boards’ first responsibility is always to practice and to make firm of the Constitution.

The American concept of democracy provides that no branch of government shall be more powerful and uncontrolled than the other branches (Lutzenberger, 2012). Judicial review is the power of the courts to oversee and prevent the legislative and executive branches from becoming abusive. Through this power, the courts interpret the meaning of laws and their application. They can invalidate a law, which they deem inconsistent with the US Constitution. They can also change the application of the law when interpreting it. Although the Constitution does not explicitly mention this power, the courts infer it from the provisions on the judicial branch in the Constitution. This inference was first made in 1803 in the Marbury v Madison case. The court declared the existence of the power and that it was for the exclusive use of the courts. They use it to interpret the intents of the Constitution on legal issues submitted to them for decision (Lutzenberger).

In the Judicial Branch, the Supreme Court has the power to disregard the Constitution or listen and go along with the Constitution. The Supreme Court also has the power to do the opposite and decide which case goes with the law and ignore the Constitution. This document shows the powers between the Legislative and Judicial Branch. By the system of Checks and Balances between the Legislative and Judicial Branch, The Judicial Branch has the power to reject laws that are unconstitutional from the Legislative Branch. But in turn, the Legislative Branch has the power to approve appointments of Supreme Court Justices from the Judicial Branch. (Page 162 9.2, DBQ Document

Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court of the United States to review actions taken by the Congress and the President and decide whether or not those actions are legal under the Constitution. The appointment process serves as a check and balance on the judicial branch because the members of the other two branches select the members of the judicial branch. They choose the Supreme Court justices and all federal court judges. The president and Congress, therefore, have the freedom and ability to shape the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the framers' intentions are not made sufficiently clear to provide easy answers on judicial review. The book states, “In recent decades, the court have, more often than not, upheld presidential power

When Chief Justice Marshall first established the important principle of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison, his goal was to give the judicial branch a safeguard by expanding the Court’s power and legitimizing the weakest branch of

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”).

Discuss the view that the power of the Supreme Court cannot be justified in a

The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.

In the Constitution, Article III establishes the federal judiciary. The section states, “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish” (“Supreme Court”). The responsibility of the Supreme Court is to balance the powers in each branch of government as well as protect civil rights and liberties by ruling laws that violate the Constitution unconstitutional. The elite cases the Supreme Court decide to rule on can be to protect the civil rights and liberties of citizens by referring to the Constitution and the rights it entails. Since this court is the highest power in the judicial system, it is the final stop and last resort for those seeking justice.

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

Hamilton discusses the powers of the judiciary in the Federalist papers essay no 78. He asserts that the judicial arm of the government is the least likely to threaten liberty and property of the citizens. Part of this assertion was brought about by his conviction and beliefs, that the judiciary was the weakest branch of government. The constitution spells out three branches of government which are independent of each other and perform different roles to the benefit of citizens. This document also spells out the checks and balances that help in regulating the three branches. For the judiciary, however, its nature of the roles makes it weakest. It also means that the role that judiciary plays in ensuring justice is meted upon every individual in the country makes it the least arm of government that can threaten individuals’ political rights.

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 Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Fourth Amendment). The text of the Fourth Amendment does not define exactly what “unreasonable search” is. The framers of the constitution left the words “unreasonable search” open in order for the Supreme Court to interpret. Hence, by looking at