“Article III of the U.S. Constitution describes the powers and obligations of the judicial branch, but not the power of the courts to review actions of the legislative and executive branches or declare possible actions unconstitutional,” (The Power of Judicial Review). This power was established by the decision in Marbury v. Madison and became known as judicial review (The Power of Judicial Review). Judicial review is the power to review and overturn acts of Congress, the executive branch and the states if the Court finds that these actions are unconstitutional. Namely, it gives the Supreme Court the ultimate power to interpret the Constitution. (Lecture Notes) When Thomas Jefferson took office, William Marbury was denied the position …show more content…
“Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which laid the foundation for the current U.S. national judicial system by creating a complex three-tier system of federal courts,” (Neubauer 53). U.S. Supreme Court is at the top, consisting of a chief justice and five associate justices, 13 district courts at the base, each presided over by a district judge (Neubauer 53). In the middle was a circuit court in every district, each composed of two Supreme Court justices, who rode the circuit, and one district court judge (Neubauer 53). It is known that, “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,” (Neubauer 52). It is stated in Marbury v. Madison that, “The power remains to the legislature, to assign original jurisdiction to that court in other cases than those specified in the article which has been recited; provided those cases belong to the judicial power of the United States,” (Marbury v. Madison). Ultimately, Marbury v. Madison declares that “the power of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written,” (Marbury v.
In Federalist no. 78 Hamilton explains the powers and duties of the judiciary department as developed in Article III of the Constitution. Article III of the Constitution is very vague on the structure of the federal courts. Hamilton had to convince Americans that the federal courts would not run amok. He presented that the federal courts would not have unlimited power but that they would play a vital role in the constitutional government. Hamilton limited judiciary power by defining it as a text-bound interpretative power. (R.B Bernstein) This essay was intended to endorse as well as interpret the Constitution.
In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Judicial Branch is the “least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution" and that it is “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” since it has “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” [*] While it is true that Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers as propaganda to garner support for the Constitution by convincing New Yorkers that it would not take away their rights and liberties, it is also true that Article III of the Constitution was deliberately vague about the powers of the Judicial Branch to allow future generations to decide what exactly those powers should be. In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, established the Court’s power of judicial review. However, as Jill Lepore, Harvard professor of American History, argued, “This was such an astonishing thing to do that the Court didn’t declare another federal law unconstitutional for fifty-four years” after declaring the Judicial Act of 1789 unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison. [*Jill Lepore] Alexander Hamilton was incorrect in his assertion that the Judicial Branch is the least dangerous to political rights and the weakest of the three government branches because judicial review has made the Supreme Court more powerful than he had anticipated. From 1803 to today, the controversial practice of judicial activism in the Supreme Court has grown—as exemplified by the differing decisions in Minor v. Happersett and United States v. Virginia—which, in effect, has increased the power of the Supreme Court to boundaries beyond those that Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist 78.
One of the Judicial Branch’s many powers is the power of judicial review. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to decide whether or not the other branches of governments’ actions are constitutional or not. This power is very important because it is usually the last hope of justice for many cases. This also allows the court to overturn lower courts’ rulings. Cases like Miranda v. Arizona gave Miranda justice for having his rules as a citizen violated. The court evalutes whether any law was broken then makes their ruling. Also, the Weeks v. United States case had to be reviewed by the court because unlawful searches and siezures were conducted by officers. One of the most famous cases involving judicial review was the Plessey v. Ferguson
Madison, declared the power of the courts to interpret the Constitution and affirmed the power of judicial review. The power of judicial review averted the judiciary branch of the inherent weakness and lack of equality in power among the three branches of government. The independence of the Supreme Court is paramount in protecting the civil liberties granted to citizens. The judicial power afforded by means of the doctrine of judicial review is not superior or above the other two branches of government. The Supreme Court’s duty is to nullify legislative acts contrary to the Constitution. Hamilton expounds the power of the courts in the Federalist Papers No. 78, “it only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both”, and judges should regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, (Hamilton, 2008). The Supreme Court’s duty is to nullify legislative acts contrary to the
In The Federalist No. 78, the conception of judiciary is introduced as a system of checks and balances to protect the civil liberties of the citizens from the other branches of government. At the same time, the judiciary concept is considered to have the least amount of power of the three branches. It is stated by Hamilton in this section of the Federalist Papers, “The Judiciary has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will” (The Federalist No. 78). The judicial system serves as a barrier in preventing the other branches of power from making decisions that infringe upon their
...hat Congress had no power to change the original jurisdiction, therefore finding the Judiciary Act unconstitutional. This is where the problem of judicial review arose in this case. Marshall found an act of congress unconstitutional and declared it null and void. This meant that Marbury, in addition to the rest of the judges and justices added by Adams, never had the right to be in the position they were in, and therefore Madison did not have to issue their commissions.
The Supreme Court and Federal court have the same authority as in the Constitution. This system is called checks and balances which prevents the sole power of any one of the three branches. In addition, this power can be divided between the states and Federal government. The Federal government’s role in “domestic and foreign affairs and how they have grown” (Fe...
There are two major ways that the Constitution is interpreted. One of which is called the “Strict Constitution” of national law, an example of this would be the “Dred Scott decision. The other way is the federalist position, where the Constitution grants broad power to the federal government. Two great examples of this type of interpretation were Chief Justices John Marshall and Earl Warren.
With that said after the Constitutional Convention was signed in 1787, President Washington felt it was necessary to institute the Judicial Courts, that are meant to exercise “judicial powers and to perform only judicial work” (Structure of the Federal Court System, 196). Since the country towards the end of the eighteenth century were under the Common Law rule, this step seemed sufficient to benefit the society. Before signing the Judiciary Act the founders wanted to go further than establishing a pyramid for the courts, they sent a draft for guidance. The few characteristics came from previous claims, one of the most uncomfortable features of the federal system were circuit riding in which the judges from the highest court to travel to different states to try cases. The circuit riding was basically a mirror match of the English courts, similarly the circuit courts were the major trial courts within the Federal Court System. Another issued faced by the system was the dealing of the single judge in the district courts. Through the time being the District Courts were “under limited jurisdiction over revenue, admiralty, and minor crimes” (Surrency, 7). Lastly, the distinction of between the Circuit Court and the Appellate Court, they both contained the same limited jurisdiction and could hear cases through writ of
The Supreme Court first considered Article III's "case or controversy" limitation on the judicial power when President George Washington forwarded to the Court a request for guidance as to how best to maintain neutrality, during an outbreak of hostilities between England and France, consistent with international law and treaties to which the United States was a party. Chief Justice Jay responded by informing the President that the Court was without power to help (the President had said he would be "much relieved" if the Court answered his questions). Jay said that the Constitution authorized the Court to interpret the law only in the context of a real case or controversy--it had no power to render an advisory opinion about the law. (Note that this limitation on the judicial power is not shared by many state supreme courts, which often do issue advisory opinions.)
The history involving the evolution of the federal courts started around the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia around 1787. It was decided that a “national judiciary be established”(pg65). There was the question of whether the federal court system should be separated from the state court system. This idea is what created “Anti-Federalists” who did not want the national government to destroy the liberties of individuals and threaten the strength of the state courts. The “Federalists” on the other hand ,wanted a strong national government so that it would provide for a new nation with a struggling economically and political unity. Through that Constitutional Convention, Article III was created to provide an outline of a federal judiciary. The power of the United States would be vested in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts.
Supreme Court is the highest federal court relative to circuit courts. As a result of this status, the Supreme Court essentially has the final say when it comes to any division involving the court. The Supreme Court also is given the power to judge whether federal, state, and local governments are properly abiding by the law. According to civilrights.org, 2/3 of the cases the Supreme Court dealt with were appealed from lower federal courts and 1/3 were appealed from state supreme courts.
Trial courts, or district courts, the Appellate, or the circuit courts, and the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) which is the only court created from the constitution (Krutz, 498). The second part of this part was Judicial Review. The Judicial Branch of our government has a crucial part in making sure the other two branches, Legislative and Executive, both constitutionally follow their powers. Many of the instances, where their intentions are put into question, are through court cases (Krutz, 508). One of the main ones we discussed considering this subject matter was Murbury v. Madison during the election of 1800. While still in office, during his lame duck period, Adams knew he would lose his control of Congress, so he began to appoint judges, known as the "midnight appointed." However, one of those many he had appointed, and the Senate confirmed, William Murbury, did not get his commission. So, he began to start the journey to sue James Madison, Jefferson's Secretary of State, who was responsible for delivering the official piece of paper. Murbury tried to use a precedent to go straight to the SCOTUS; however, there are only two times when the Supreme Court will have original jurisdiction. That is only when the cases deal with foreign ambassadors and cases that have a state as a party (Krutz,
“The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States. It creates a federal system of government in which power is shared between the federal government and the state governments. Due to federalism, both the federal government and each of the state governments have their own court systems. Discover the differences in structure, judicial selection, and cases heard in both systems” (as cited in Comparing Federal & State Courts, n.d., p.1).
The debate over the legitimacy of the role of judicial review in the United States constitutional democracy has been around since the creation of the Constitution. The power of judicial review can be considered antidemocratic because it isn’t directly stated in the Constitution, of the authority of unelected judges and the fact that it sometimes resists the majority. Despite these claims, I believe judicial review is a constitutional doctrine, which arose from the historical process of persuasive reasoning in rulings, institutional prestige, the cooperation of political branches, and general public opinion.