Judicial Review Pros And Cons

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.

Anti-Federalism, an 18th century political movement led primarily by Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, opposed the ratification of the new United States Constitution for multiple reasons. [B] The new U.S. Constitution was written by a group of delegates selected for the 1787 Constitutional Convention which took place in Philadelphia. A chief reason Anti-Federalists were highly concerned with this document was the amount of power it would give the federal government. They worried that the implementation of a strong centralized government could only be possible at the expense of individual states rights and freedoms. Anti-Federalists were also concerned that smaller states, who had previously held as much weight in national affairs as larger states, may be ignored or trampled upon in regards to passing interstate laws and amending federal documents. Another concern of the Anti-Federalists was the absence of a Bill of Rights, a specific list of personal rights possessed by American citizens, in the Constitution. They feared that without this bill of stated rights, there would be no guarantee that the American government, under the Constitution, would not pass tyrannical laws resembling those implemented by the British just prior to the American Revolution. [A]

The Anti-Federalists believed that a strong central government would decrease the rights of the common people, and would not protect the rights of citizens. In Document 1, a Massachusetts farmer explains that the new constitution would decrease involvement of the common people in government, leaving it to be run by wealthy and highly educated men. The Anti-Federalists wanted all people to be involved in government, rather than a selected elite few. The Anti-Federalists also rallied against the establishment of a standing military. As said in Document 2, a military could easily exercise force to quiet those with concerns involving the government, and that the ideas of being free and peaceful do not involve a standing army. Perhaps one of the biggest concerns of the Anti-Federalists, was that there was nothing in the constitution that protected the rights of the people. Thomas Jefferson supported parts of the new constitution, but disliked that there was no Bill of Rights in the document. Jefferson wrote in a letter to James Madison saying “...Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to….” (Doc 6). Jefferson believe that the people should have this Bill of Rights in the constitution to protect their personal freedoms and beliefs. With that he fully supported the ratification of the new

During the Revolutionary War, colonists believed that they needed a sense of unified government, so this led to the creation of the Articles of Confederation, the first written constitution of the United States (history.com). Although the Articles of Confederation had its strengths, such as allowing the central government to create treaties and maintain military, it had many weaknesses, such as preventing the central government to levy taxes and regulate trade. It also could not be changed unless there was a unanimous decision and it lacked a stable currency. Since the creation of the Articles of Confederation had many issues and weaknesses, the Continental Congress rewrote the Articles into what is now known as the U.S Constitution. The Constitution established a national government, guaranteed basic rights for the colonists and revised almost everything that was wrong in the original Articles, such as the sovereignty that resided primarily in the states and the lack of power from the national government. The Constitution was later ratified by all 13 states in May 1790, with the support of the Federalist Party. [A] Federalists believed in the commitment to a strong national government and in the practice of a separation of powers. However, Anti-Federalists had the opposite view which was the opposition of a strong national government, the support for small landowners, and the representation of rights of the people. Anti-Federalists believed that a strong national government

Then there were Anti- Federalists who believed that the bulk of duties should continue to be left to each state's own discretion, so that there would be no misrepresentation of the people it governed. It's left to say that neither side saw eye to eye, but would eventually reach a "compromise", the Federalists would institute their version of the Constitution which had a clear notion of Central Government and it's duties. The Anti-Federalists would receive an additional amendment to the Constitution (The Bill of Rights), which would protect the personal liberties they were convinced a Central Government would revoke. Both sides seemed fairly satisfied with the outcome, though there was still fear of that popular tyranny from the outside. But the act of tyranny they should have feared was their own, for the Framer's motives for creating a new constitution was really protecting the few (the rights of the Wealthy) against the many (the non-elite).

(Document 2) This quote illustrates that there was no way to prevent the branches (executive, judicial, legislative) from abusing their powers. The anti-federalists feared what this strong central government would become. Reasonably, if the constitution was ratified, the federalists would have endless control. The anti federalists feared the government would become a monarchy. Perhaps the biggest argument was mentioned in The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the adoption of the Federal Constitution, “it is the opinion of this convention that certain amendments and alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears and quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of the commonwealth….powers not expressly delegated by the constitution… are reserved to several states.” (Document 6) This quote states that the powers that were not given to the original constitution would now be given to the states. Basically, if there was any right or law not originally in the constitution the states were given the right to adjust and look after it.

The federalist wanted the state government to have less powers than the central government because they thought it was the best way to keep the States together. The anti-federalist on the other hand were more in favorite of the states having more power in order to prevent any kind of tyranny. George Bryan an anti-federalist said this " to declare that each state retains it sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right,which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." If more power was given to the states we could be sure that our rights would not be infringed. Another reason the anti-federalist didn’t like the constitution and wanted to stay with states having more power is the the Constitution did not give a bill of rights. Some of the people who wanted the states to have more more power was Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and John

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).

Similar to checks and balances, judicial review allows the Supreme Court to consider laws unconstitutional and protect citizens’ rights by doing so. On the other hand, Federalism separates National government with States’ governments in order to preserve existing states and local government that came from the Articles of Confederation. Judicial review was established in 1803 during the Marbury vs. Madison case when the Supreme Court made a jurisdiction when two laws conflicted. This means that the court has the power to decide what is and isn’t Constitutional. Another example of judicial review is when it was ruled that segregated schools were unconstitutional.

The Anti-Federalist Papers recognized that the people one in power “can seldom or never resume it again but by force”. The establishment of a single law that would be equally applied to all states and where the power would be vested in a central government represented, for the anti-federalists, the condition of the lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United States. “Nor the constitution or laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given”. Anti-Federalist Papers established their fear on having a judicial branch that would overrule over the state courts without attending to the necessity of the local people, as well, the congress would be able to limit the decisions of the national state if it would affect the well-being of the whole nation, again, limiting the purpose of the national government on the pursuit of happiness of its own

-The power of the judicial review is “A court’s power to review statutes to decide if they conform to the U.S. or state constitutions”. It is important to our legal system to have the power of the judicial review as a tool to the disposal of the courts when conflicts arise within the law or constitution.

Judicial review is when the judicial branch interprets the law as constitutional or

The Framers of the United States Constitution ultimately decided to give more power to the Federal government rather than the state governments for many reasons. There were many problems with the articles that caused instability in the government, and even a rebellion. Then there’s the Federal government who lacked powers to do anything much because the people were too scared to make the Federal government strong. Lastly, there was the State government who had either too much power or they had power that the Federal government should have. There were a lot of problems with the Articles that needed to be addressed , most of which were addressed.

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.

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