Is judicial review a good idea? should nine unelected judges be able to tell our elected representatives what they can and cannot do? 2. Are courts more likely to block an enlightened consensus with their adherence to outdated principles or to protect the politically weak from oppressive majorities? 3. Are judges, protected with lifetime tenure and drawn generally from the educated class, more likely to be reflective and above the passing enthusiasms that drive legislative action? 4. Does marbury mean that legislators or members of the executive branch have no responsibility to judge the constitutionality of their own actions? 5. Could we have a workable system of government without judicial review? the prime and most necessary function of the court has been that of validation. What a government of limited powers needs, at the beginning and forever, is some means of satisfying the people that it has taken all steps humanly possible to stay within its powers.

Pick Your Own Topic Essay

The supreme court of the united states spends much, if not most, of its time on a task which is not delegated to the supreme court by the constitution. That task is: hearing cases wherein the constitutionality of a law or regulation is challenged. The supreme court's nine justices attempt to sort out what is, and what is not constitutional. But the states, in drafting the constitution, did not delegate such a power to the supreme court, or to any branch of the government.

Since the constitution does not give this power to the court, you might wonder how it came to be that the court assumed this responsibility. The answer is that the court just started doing it and no one has put a stop to it. This assumption of power took place first in 1794 when the supreme court declared an act of congress to be unconstitutional, but went largely unnoticed until the landmark case of marbury v madison in 1803. Marbury is significant less for the issue that it settled between marbury and madison than for the fact that chief justice john marshall used marbury to provide a rationale for judicial review. Since then, the idea that the supreme court should be the arbiter of constitutionality issues has become so ingrained that most people incorrectly believe that the constitution granted this power to the federal judiciary. Article i of the constitution provides for the establishment of a judicial branch of the federal government and section 2 of that article enumerates the powers of the supreme court.

Master Thesis Empirical

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the congress shall make. Feel free to examine the entire text of article i to assure yourself that no power of judicial review is granted by the constitution. Why not the supreme court? some possible answers: first and foremost, it is not a power granted to the supreme court by the constitution. when the supreme court exercises judicial review, it is acting unconstitutionally. the federal government is judging the constitutionality of its own laws. it is a classic case of the fox guarding the hen house.

Mathematics Research Paper

The constitution's checks and balances were designed to prevent any one branch of government legislative, executive or judicial from becoming too powerful and running roughshod over the other branches. justices are appointed, not elected and may only be removed for bad behavior which has happened in the distant past but these days, appointment to the supreme court is like a lifetime appointment. If the court upholds unconstitutional laws, there is no recourse available. we the people cannot simply vote them out to correct the situation.

Thomas jefferson wrote, in 1823: at the establishment of our constitution, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account. It is the constitution, not the supreme court, which is the supreme law of the land. even the supreme court should be accountable for overstepping constitutional limits on federal power. judicial review turns the constitution on its head. the judiciary was created as the weakest branch, controlled by both the legislative and executive branches.

Judicial review makes the judiciary master of both the legislature and ececutive, telling them both what that may and may not do. There are only nine justices and, under the current system, it takes only a simple majority mdash five votes mdash to determine a case. Given the supermajority requirement mandated by the constitution to pass constitutional amendments, a simple majority requirement by the supreme court, to uphold a suspect law, defies the spirit of the constitution. if 44.44% of the supreme court justices four of nine think a law is not constitutional, we should err on the side of caution and declare it unconstitutional. The people and the states have little control over the makeup of the supreme court. Officials in all three branches of government take an oath of office to uphold the constitution.

The supreme court justices, senators, congressmen, and vice president, and other federal officers, all take an oath of office to support and defend the constitution. Requires that he preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states. Why is the supreme court's version of constitutional considered more authoritative? is the judicial branch more to be trusted than the executive or legislative branches? prudence dictates that we be wary of all three branches and especially wary of the one unaccountable branch. Given that it was the people and the states which established the constitution, it is the states who should settle issues of constitutionality. the constitution is a set of rules made by the states as to how the government should act. the judicial review paradigm allows the government to make its own rules with no say by the original rule makers mdash the states.

Place of Computer In Today World Essay

The constitution was created by the states and any question as to the meaning of the constitution is rightly settled by the states. when you make rules for your children, do you permit your children to interpret your rules in any manner they like? of course not. Yet, the states are permitting the federal government mdash the child of the states mdash to do exactly that. Since the power of judicial review is not expressly granted to the supreme court by the constitution, this power, per the tenth amendment. Is reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. read that last listed reason above again, for it contains the key to this site's being.

the constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. thomas jefferson a judicial activist is a judge who interprets the constitution to mean what it would have said if he, instead of the founding fathers, had written it. day by day, case by case, the court is busy redesigning a constitution for a nation i do not recognize. Judicial power and jurisdiction judicial review the establishment of judicial review judicial review is one of the distinctive features of united states constitutional law.