Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803) Our founders recognized the plausible abuse of power by an out of control Judiciary and a fractious Congress. Despite our founders intentions the United States government doesn’t consist of three coequal branches; ergo, Americans are subjugated by a judicial tyranny. When the states were drafting the Constitution, the power of Judicial Review was not delegated to the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) or any other branch of the government. Our founders knew that placing too much power in any one branch of government would be a significant threat to liberty which could result in despotism. This thread will examine the brief history of Marbury v. Madison and how SCOTUS hijacked the power of …show more content…
Madison established the principle of judicial review.1 In that decision, Chief Justice John Marshall stated: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”2 Mark Levin in The Liberty Amendments (2013) noted the Marbury v. Madison ruling modified and augmented SCOTUS’ limited jurisdiction to arbitrate civil and criminal disputes into judicial oligarchy with few institutional limits on its power.3 Since that decision, the notion of judicial review asserts that SCOTUS can declare congressional acts, presidential decisions, and state statues unconstitutional has maneuvered into judicial supremacy.4 Some examples are the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), same sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges), and SCOTUS in Kelo v. City of New London interpreted the Takings Clause to allow government to seize citizens’ homes, transferring the property to a private corporation because it could pay more …show more content…
Since Marbury v. Madison the federal courts not only have usurped power, but they have changed the core function of the judiciary, interpreting the law; thereby, behaving likes an Olympian council. SCOTUS has even set themselves above all other branches of the federal government by declaring that they are the “supreme law of the land.” 8 Today SCOTUS engages in judicial activism, making determinations based on their personal policy preferences as opposed to the rule of law. They claim that the Constitution evolves, that it changes in regards to social agreement, it is a living document; thus, making decisions based on their will and not that of American citizens. Robert Alt, What is the Proper Role of the Courts, ¶ 2, nn. 1, 2 (Report No. 14, 2012). Dennis G Hurst, SCOTUS and Judicial Tyranny, ¶ 12, nn.3, 4 (2015). Alt, supra at ¶ 5, 9, 12, n. 5. Hurst, supra at ¶ 16, nn. 6,
The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.
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.
Marbury v. Madison, which established the power of judicial review for the Supreme Court, changed the course of American history. This power to review legislation that congress has passed and possibly deem it unconstitutional has had a profound impact on American society. This power provides a check on the Legislative branch, but it also lends itself to an important debate over when the Court can and should use this power. Should the court use this power to increase the power of the national government, something many call judicial activism? Or should this power be used to curtail national legislative power and increase the liberties given to individuals? During the period around the Great Depression, the court dealt with many economic cases regarding these questions, and at first glance, it appears that they did not seem to favor either the government or the individual. Looking closer, however, one sees that the cases that side with the individual struck down legislation that interfered with the commerce clause or police power. When legislation invoking either of the aforementioned clauses was provided, the Supreme Court tended to side with the Government over the individual, as seen in the cases Munn v. Illinois, National Relations Board v. Jones, and Wickard v. Filburn. When the legislation provided had no business with the commerce clause or police power, such as in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, the court had no choice but to side with the individual.
This decision expanded the power of the Supreme court in general by establishing the principle of judicial review (the power to declare a law unconstitutional) and declaring that the Supreme Court had the power of judicial review with original jurisdiction. This decision was considered the biggest pyrrhic victory for Thomas Jefferson because he was not forced to deliver the commission to Marbury, but his executive powers were diminished with the Court not having the power to decide the constitutionality of laws and executive actions and declare them null and void if necessary.
In Robert Lowry Clinton’s book Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review, the author describes the controversial ideal of judicial review, which became a major power delegated to the Supreme Court following the case Marbury v. Madison. Clinton does this by tracing the origins of judicial review that preceded the court case, as well as describing the institution through the court case itself and its future in the American justice system. Despite the court’s now famous history, Clinton claims in his book an agreed upon notion of judicial review of constitutional matters has existed before, during and after the Marbury decision.
Through the history of the united states, issues have been relevant enough to make it to the supreme court, where justice was imposed and appropriate decisions to solve the problem fairly followed. These decisions shaped society, either for the better or worse, which shaped the current time period situations. Although, in most cases, such as the Dred Scott v Sandford, the decisions were, later on, declared unconstitutional. But, if the issue for this case had not been brought up to court the situation would never have been up for discussion.
Before the adoption of the United States Constitution, the U.S. was governed by the Articles of Confederation. These articles stated that almost every function of the government was chartered by the legislature known as Congress. There was no distinction between legislative or executive powers. This was a major shortcoming in how the United States was governed as many leaders became dissatisfied with how the government was structured by the Articles of Confederation. They felt that the government was too weak to effectively deal with the upcoming challenges. In 1787, an agreement was made by delegates at the Constitutional Convention that a national judiciary needed to be established. This agreement became known as The Constitution of the United States, which explicitly granted certain powers to each of the three branches of the federal government, while reserving other powers exclusively to the states or to the people as individuals. It is, in its own words, “the supreme Law of the Land” (Shmoop Editorial Team).
The reason for much of this power is the principle of judicial review of the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government at both state and federal level against a written constitution and the power therefore to 'interpret' the constitution. The power of judicial review over the states is laid down in the supremacy clause of article III and the power of judicial review over the other two branches of the federal government is implied in the constitution and by several but by no means all of the founding fathers: "A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of thei... ... middle of paper ... ...
Hobson, Charles F. The Great Chief Justice, John Marshall And the Rule Of Law. University Press Of Kansas: Wison Garey McWilliams & Lance Banning, 1996.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Abadinsky, Howard. Law and Justice: An Introduction to the American Legal System. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2008. Print.
The significant impact Robert Dahl’s article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker” created for our thought on the Supreme Court it that it thoroughly paved the way towards exemplifying the relationship between public opinion and the United States Supreme Court. Dahl significantly was able to provide linkages between the Supreme Court and the environment that surrounds it in order for others to better understand the fundamental aspects that link the two together and explore possible reasoning and potential outcomes of the Court.
...ral and political notions. While this tendency of the Court is deplorable, the truth is inescapable that the cases allowing for many of our most basic rights cannot be justified simply by reference to the Constitution. Hence, the Court has invoked the generality of the Constitution to define and defend vested rights and general principles of democratic society. To conclude, without the ability to move beyond the explicit text of the Constitution, a great number of crucial decisions in U.S. history must be overturned. The simple fact is that the interpretive model cannot allow for the justification of many of our most sacred rights. While criticisms as to the justification of the power of the Court to discern the values of contemporary society are legitimate, history as well as the citizens of this society have long declared the non-interpretive model superior.
The term ‘judicial activism’ means a court decision suspected of being built or based on individual, political or private reflections instead of the actual law. In America, judicial activism is considered either as conventional or as plentiful. The original retro of American legitimate antiquity was categorized by traditional justice involvement where the Central Supreme Law court was reluctant to allow the conditions or the assembly to permit lawmaking that would control social or financial businesses. Judges should not read between the lines or add their own experiences when it comes to determining what the verdict will be. The United States Constitution is direct, with plainly written sentences and all judges should follow those guidelines.