The Supreme Court Struck Down The Mccain Feingold Act

Corporate advantage is often times very controversial in government, from funding candidates with money, to swaying the mind of the voters, to making PACs and superPACs; this topic is not at rest with the F.E.C. or other government programs or agencies. In this case we see “Citizens United” ,a special interest group, fight with the F.E.C. about this advantage and the right to set restrictions on spending money for the purpose of engaging in political speech. In a 5-4 decision, Some may think that the court ruled correctly on corporate expenditures ; yet lots of people think that this advantage is corrupt, here’s why.

The role of the Judicial Branch of the United States has been the most dynamic throughout the Nation’s history. By adopting the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Supreme Court established its position as being arguably the most powerful branch of Federal Government. However, this also made the Judiciary’s role the most controversial. Should the Court be required to interpret the constitution strictly through the language it contains? Does the Court have the right to overturn morals legislation? Through analyzing court cases like Lawrence v. Texas, one can gain insight on the role of the Supreme Court and how it fits within the confines of the United States Government.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the nation and is responsible for being the impartial judge in interpreting the law of the land. One of the biggest struggles the Court can face is having to rule for what is constitutional over what is morally right. This is not referring to Plessy v. Ferguson where we only know it was morally wrong in hindsight. This is referring to a case where the judges knew fully well that what had happened was a tragedy and an injustice yet, they had to rule against what any normal human being would vote for. Imagine the difficulty in that. Now, imagine the public backlash when it was announced. The conflict of morality vs. constitutionality in the Court in the case of DeShaney v Winnebago County is apparent

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

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

In this case, Chief Justice Roberts determines the role of the Court in his opinion. Roberts argues that the point of the Court is not to say whether a law is good or bad, if the people do not like the bill, it is their fault. Roberts says, “the responsibility of this Court is to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down the acts of Congress that transgress those limits” (Roberts, pg 6). He also says, “we must determine whether the Constitution grants Congress powers it now asserts, but which many States and individuals believe it does not possess” (Roberts, pg 2). To do so, the Court must examine the limits on the Government’s power and their own limited role in “policing those boundaries” (2). In this case, Roberts says the Court must uphold its constitutionality and the fundamental will of the people.

In order for one to understand American Constitutional law, one must first look to the Constitution; and therefore, look to the federal government established in the Constitution. The federal government is purposefully divided into three branches: the legislative branch that makes the laws, the judicial branch that interprets the laws, and the executive branch that puts the laws into effect. Article VI, Clause 2, sets up the Constitution as “the supreme Law of the Land;” and therefore, legislators, judges, and presidents must comply with the standards set in the Constitution. Judges, then, have the function to interpret what the Constitution means and have the responsibility to ensure laws adhere to the Constitution. Thereby, the

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

Many people argue that judicial review is unconstitutional, as it is stated in the 10th amendment that any power not given to the federal government is given to the states. It is argued that the states alone have the power to make changes to the constitution and states should play some role in interpreting the meaning of it. Congress tried to limit judicial review on many occasions. One was in 1868 when congress passed a law stating that ⅔ of the court be required to deem any act of congress

In the book Courting Disaster: How the Supreme Court is Usurping the Power of Congress and the People, it sets out to identify how our government has changed and how these changes affect us and our laws. Pat Robertson wants the people to see how the Supreme Court is abusing power. Robertson shows how the federal judges are not only abusing their power but reaching beyond the power they are given. Thomas Jefferson once cautioned that, “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions” are “a very dangerous doctrine indeed” and “one that would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy” (Robertson, Courting disaster: How the supreme court is usurping the power of Congress and the people, 2004).

Money is being spent on independent TV advertisement campaigns by special interest groups and political parties that are hoping to influence judicial races (Skaggs, 2010). Hundreds of millions of dollars have been raised for competitive state high courts candidates’ campaign, and tens of millions of that is spent on TV ads. In states such as Alabama, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas in order to realistically have a shot at becoming a forerunner in an election, candidates must be able to connect with the special interest groups and political parties that can help fund the campaign.

As the former mentioned document does not forbid the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus but simply does not state it, I do not feel like the Judiciary Act of 1789 is in conflict with the Constitution. The Constitution is not capable of including every eventuality there is, therefore declaring every law not mentioned in the Constitution as unconstitutional would restrict the actions of the legislative and executive immensely. Instead, declaring acts as unconstitutional should be limited to laws or actions directly interfering with it. I do think judicial review is an important tool in the modern system of checks and balances and plays a significant role in keeping different branches from gaining too much power. It is, therefore, necessary to

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 Constitution states that “the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, this section is mere surplusage and is entirely without meaning. If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance.