Judicial Branch

The political cartoon analyzes the branches of government using football as a metaphor to show checks and balances that limit the power of the government. Furthermore, checks and balances work for the U.S. government because powers are delegated to each branch and the checks allow for equity among the branches. In the cartoon, the legislative branch and the executive branch are playing against each other while the judicial branch is the referee. In document one, Congress has the power to write laws, but the president can veto the bills that Congress proposes. Thus, the powers balance out the branches’ powers, which keeps them in a tight line of what they are allowed to do. Also, the President appoints judges, but Congress can reject them. They

INTRODUCTION United States Supreme Court case Scott v. Sanford (1857), commonly known as the Dred Scott Case, is probably the most famous case of the nineteenth century (with the exception possibly of Marbury v. Madison). It is one of only four cases in U. S. history that has ever been overturned by a Constitutional amendment (overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments). It is also, along with Marbury, one of only two cases prior to the Civil War that declared a federal law unconstitutional. This case may have also been one of the most, if not the most, controversial case in American history, due simply to the fact that it dealt an explosive opinion on an issue already prepared to erupt - slavery. Thus, many scholars assert that the

Dred Scott vs. Sanford was a case in which a slave named Dred Scott and his wife, Harriet, sued for their freedom in a St. Louis city court. They could be made free because they had been held in a free state before going back to a slave state. But since slaves were not considered citizens, the judgement was made that they could not expect any protection from the federal court. They also stated congress didn't have the power to ban slavery in a federal territory. This case lead us one step closer to the civil war, since it angered many people.

This first case Dred Scott v. Sanford was the first major segregational conflict to go all the way to the Supreme Court. In 1846 a slave named Dred Scott and his true love Harriet Scott were sued for their freedom as people in St. Louis. And the whole way up the chain of courts the case became more and more important and more well known by everyone from that time period. It's a very

When the founding fathers first created the Judicial Branch it is clear that the idea of it was created with a strong purpose behind it, but ended up falling flat. Just by looking at the length of article 3 in the constitution compared to the others, we can see that its role isn’t as great as the Executive and Legislative, but the judicial branch are the ones that have their job sorted. The Supreme Court and the inferior court are doing what they are supposed to do, securing that things are constitutional and that citizens are following the rules. The founding fathers purposefully made a weak Executive Branch in order to prevent yet another king.

In the case of Dred Scott vs. Sandford, Dred Scott sued Sanford for freedom on the fact that Sandford took them into a state where slavery was forbidden for military assignments. This case lasted approximately 11 years until the court ruled that Scott was not free. It was ruled that black men have no opportunity for equal rights especially for a slave. This made black folk and some white folk very disappointed. This decision had great impact though because it gave some people the courage to stand up for equal rights. This eventually caused violent protest because of the court's decision around the nation.

The reasons why Hamilton states that the judicial branch is the least dangerous branch of the government is that it is impossible for the judicial branch to act upon the other branches of the government. With the judicial branch being the least dangerous, the people’s rights are safe. The job of the judicial branch is to only judge but with the help of the executive branch. Going further, some of the possible effects on the judicial branch being the least dangerous are not being able to attack the other branches of the government. If there was to be no separation between the branches of the government, the liberty of the people would be in danger. Hamilton suggested that it is the job of the union to ensure that the branches are separated especially

In many situations Judiciary was the first who recognized the incoming “wind of change” and according to that made many landmark decisions in the area of civil rights and liberties. That shows importance of Judiciary, but it does not mean that Judiciary is stronger than other two branches. For each landmark decision in the area of civil rights the Court waited a long time before finally decided to change interpretation of the law (more than 100 years for full incorporation of the Bill of Rights into XIV amendment). Basically when the public began to change opinion the Court did too. For instance in the 1954 when was the case Brown v. Board of Education, public opinion was considerably different from 1896 and the case Plessy v. Ferguson.

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

The Judicial Branch has opened up opportunities for the country of the United States of America in many ways. The Judicial Branch has found new ways to affect our society. They are meant to interpret the laws for our country. They do this to ensure our country is being protected by 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.

Ours is, ostensibly, a nation of laws. Few concepts in American Law are as generally esteemed as the process of judicial review. The layperson, when pressed, will likely refer to judicial review as a key purpose of the American judiciary, a fundamental check in the American system of government. However, it does not take astute observation to note that any direct reference to the process formally known as judicial review is conspicuously absent in the text of the Constitution. How is it then that the Judiciary, the branch Alexander Hamilton expressly referred to as the least dangerous of three provided arms of Federal government, is in a position to strike laws passed by Congress? Moreover, should the Courts be able to effectively dictate

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 United States government consists of three main branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. Within the contents of this essay, the judicial branch will be examined. The judicial branch of the United States government oversees justice throughout the country by expounding and applying laws by means of a court system.1 This system functions by hearing and determining the legality of such cases.2 Sitting at the top of the United States court system is the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of the United States encompasses the federal judiciary, explicitly the judicial branch. This court is comprised of life-long serving Justices who are selected by the President of the United States and approved by the Senate.3 Cooperatively,

Have you ever wondered which branch of government was the most powerful? There are three branches of government but not all of them have the same power. Well if you didn't know the most important branch is the judicial branch. Even though all the branches are powerful,but at different times, The judicial branch has the final say in the use of power because it can overturn rulings by other judges ,they Can rule that an presidential action or law is unconstitutional , and the supreme court cannot be fired by the president.