Rise of Judicial Power: Constitution and Marbury v Madison

1791 Words4 Pages

The Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1787 and it established the powers of the federal government. Its intended purpose was to protect individual rights and liberties. It constructed the three branches of government that we know today: Executive, legislative and judicial. These branches created a separation of powers, in addition to check and balances. Originally, the judicial branch did not have much power when the constitution was written. It was not until the case of Marbury v Madison in 1803 that it actually established the judicial review. The judicial review is what gave the federal courts a great deal of power to void acts of Congress that they deemed violates the Constitution. After this case, the Supreme Court Justices …show more content…

Every Justice has their own views and ideas on how cases are to be decided. The best approach to interpreting the Constitution is adopting the pragmatist approach, which is why it has lasted so many years. Opposite to originalism, where the Justices interpret the document by using the framers intended meaning at the time it was written, pragmatism follows the assumption that the Constitution is a living document; this means the interpretation of the document adapts to the growing and ever changing society. With this ideology, Justices may make decisions that do not follow the rulings on precedent cases; they also look at how their decisions will impact the current society, along with how the decision will affect future cases. Throughout Supreme Court history there have been a number of Justices that have used the pragmatic approach, including Justices Robert Jackson, Stephen Breyer, and Oliver …show more content…

This type of interpretation to cases can potentially be detrimental to whole of society. In some cases, the pragmatic dissenting opinion would be the most logical ruling because it would be the least harmful to the greatest number of people, since it would look at all of the potential outcomes when deciding on a case. One case in particular that corresponds with this is Lochner v New York. This case was ruling on if the New York Bake Shop Act- setting a maximum work hour limit for bakers- was in violation of liberty to contract. The majority rule of the Supreme Court ruled that this act was in fact unconstitutional because it violated the 14th amendments due process clause by interfering with right for an employer and employee -who are on equal footing- to negotiate and create their own contracts. The Court believed it is given liberty for an employee and employer to do this by themselves without interference. It was also concluded that the job of a baker had no heath risks or dangers involved, which is not true. This ruling is not following the fundamental beliefs of the Constitution because it is disregarding the protection of people in the bakery work force. The justices with the majority opinion overlook the problem that without any guidelines set in place, employers can take advantage of

Show More
Related

  • Three Ringed Circus: Understanding Checks and Balances

    1239 Words  | 3 Pages

    The writing of opinions seems reminiscent of James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 10. This particular Federalist deals with the topic of federalism, and the appearance of factions in American politics. Factions, according to these Founding Fathers (as well as the past few tests) are undesirable, but inevitable in a free society. People tend to flock to join people of a like mind on issues as them. When factions arise, the public differentiate themselves based on those topics, leading to more dissention. The only way to “control” these factions are to establish a state of federalism, where different levels of government have authority over the same people in the same province. In this system, the majority vote rules, but the minority has a set of rights that must be taken into account in the final decision made by the government. The releasing of opinions by the justices, both concurring opinions and dissenting opinions, is directly in line with The Federalist No. 10. The majority gains an initial “head start”, as it were, from the initial vote, but the minority still has the right, and ability to change the opinion of the majority. At its most basic, the whole

    Read More

  • Structure of the Federal Court System

    1304 Words  | 3 Pages

    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).

    Read More

  • Judicial Review Pros And Cons

    589 Words  | 2 Pages

    Some people feel that the frequent use of judicial review can lead to commanding judiciary. Whereas with judicial activism people feel the Supreme Court should exercise the right of judicial review and is considered necessary. This all ties in together with how the Constitution is interpreted as stated earlier.

    Read More

  • Graphic Adaptation By Jonathan Hennessey And Aaron Mcconnell's Comparison

    943 Words  | 2 Pages

    Constitutional interpretation is the principle job of the Judicial branch, and citizens have a variety of earnest beliefs based off of the document as well. There were several incidents where Hennessey’s own opinions were present in his writing. While discussing the Second Amendment, he states, “ So, if “people” have the right to bear arms, government has the power to impose fair qualifications on that right” (p.95). I don’t have to disagree with this assertion to know that readers deserve to learn from unbiased materials. This is a fierce issue in our government, and many people contend that Second Amendment rights are absolute and should not be infringed upon. Other times, Hennessy presents both sides of an issue like whether the Constitution is a “living document” that changes as time passes, or what Textualists believe, which is that the constitution should be accepted exactly as it is written. The value of reading the

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Judicial Review

    1015 Words  | 3 Pages

    views as to whether or not Judicial review, and the Supreme Court as a whole,

    Read More

  • External Factors Influencing Judicial Decision Making

    274 Words  | 1 Pages

    The idea that that partisanship and ideology influences judicial decision making is nerve-racking. Why should one’s beliefs be intertwined with policy decisions? However, it is a rare occurrence when policy decisions, courts ruling and lawmaking is not affected by either an external or internal factor. Some external factor influences are the mass media, protest, and interest groups. While some internal factors are the individual philosophy, cultural, legal implications, and politics. In judicial decision making a justice’s conclusion is based on his or her internal factors. Some justices are a strong believer of judicial activism which is the a broaden and expansion of one’s rights, liberties and equality. While some justices have a narrower

    Read More

  • Essay On Parliamentary Sovereignty

    1601 Words  | 4 Pages

    Judges have varying levels of deference to these decisions that are allocated based on an assessment of an issue. Under the HRA, it is argued that judges “owe a duty of minimal deference to parliamentary … decision making, but substantial deference is only owed exceptionally. ” Judges can give weight to Parliament; however often still allow room for their own appraisal. Parliamentary sovereignty does not allow for judges to not follow acts of Parliament, however the HRA enables them to view legislation as weighty, but never as authoritative, allowing them to interpret it loosely enough that it no longer bears resemblance. In R v A, LJ Hope stated that section 3 “is only a rule of interpretation ” which draws a distinction between judicial and legislative law making; however, this differentiation does not change that the courts still make significant alterations to legislation. LJ Nicholls, in Ghaidan v Godin Mendoza, stated, “The precise form of words read in for this purpose is of no significance. It is the substantive effect that matters. ” The court disregarded a House of Lords precedent and effectively changed the law. Prior to 1999, the only institution capable of this would have been Parliament. The powers of interpretation that the courts gained are directly contrary to Parliamentary sovereignty, and empowered courts to go against acts of Parliament. In Jackson v Attorney General, there was obiter suggesting that there are limits to Parliamentary sovereignty: “Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was absolute” by LJ Hope, who goes on to say, “the fact that your lordships have been willing to hear this appeal … is another indication that the courts have a part to play in defining the limits of Parliament’s legislative authority.

    Read More

  • The 3 Branches of the American Government

    1529 Words  | 4 Pages

    The constitution was established by men who had experienced the dictatorships of Europe and had escaped from its grasp. They sought to establish a form of government that would never allow a dictatorship or tyrant ruler to hold power over the people like in the places they had fled. With their creation of the foundation of what our government is today they created a system where 3 branches were all of equal power and each could be overruled by another which prevented any branch becoming superior of another. The separation of powers provides a system of shared power called Checks and Balances.(2) The three branches are legislative, judicial and executive and they each have specific powers to balance those of the other branches. The Legislative branch is made up of the House and Senate. The Executive branch is made of the President, Vice-President, and the Departments. The Judicial branch is made of the Federal courts and the Supreme Court. Each of these branches has certain powers, and each of these powers is limited, or checked, by the other two branches. By forcing the three branches to be monitored by the others, no one branch can gain enough power to become superior over the others. The American Governments system of being divided into 3 branches that can restrain one another is the most efficient way to govern the U.S. in a fair manner and without any branch becoming more powerful than another.

    Read More

  • Importance Of Oral Argument

    1579 Words  | 4 Pages

    In the modern court, Justices use oral arguments to gather information about policy that is not presented in the briefs. Moreover, Johnson argues that oral arguments serve to uncover certain policy issues in a case (Johnson 3). For that reason, the proceedings might have an affect the court’s decision. Furthermore, some issues of policy raised by judges might have to do with the current state of the law. However, for Justices it is important to find policies closest to their own values and preferences. In addition, the personal life experience of justices, ideology, political identification might play a role in their vote. Therefore, oral arguments help Justices raise questions about policy preference in order to make more informed decisions when voting on a

    Read More

  • Constitutional Government Controls The Exercise Of Political Power

    455 Words  | 1 Pages

    Aside from the direct process of changing the Constitution, the effect of its provisions may be changed by judicial interpretation. Early in the history of the republic, in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court established the doctrine of judicial review, which is the power of the Court to interpret acts of Congress and decide their constitutionality. The doctrine also embraces the power of the Court to explain the meaning of various sections of the Constitution as they apply to changing legal, political, economic, and social conditions. Over the years, a series of Court decisions, on issues ranging from governmental regulation of radio and television to the rights of the accused in criminal cases, has had the effect of bringing up to date the thrust of constitutional law,

    Read More

  • Term Paper: Judicial Review

    555 Words  | 2 Pages

    Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court to review, and if needed, determine if the actions of the legislative and executive branches are unconstitutional. This power is important for the judicial branch in keeping the balance among the three branches of government and keeping the executive and legislative branches in check. The power of judicial was not described directly in the Constitution but it has been implied and since this power is not clearly outlined, it has been subject to change and different interpretations. Many political figures, documents, and cases have contributed to the evolution of judicial review and how it should be practiced by the Supreme Court in regard of deciding whether a law is congruous with the Constitution. The examination of judicial review and examples of its use is essential when attempting to understand this power.

    Read More

  • Supreme Court Analysis

    1538 Words  | 4 Pages

    Madison in 1803, the Court was granted the power of judicial review(Judicial Learning Center), which fundamentally reshaped the power it possessed. Through Judicial Review the Court now has the authority to consider the constitutionality of any legislation passed, as long as it has jurisdiction and meets the specific criteria of justiciability. To do so the court must not be offering an advisory opinion, the plaintiff must have standing, and the issues must be ripe but neither moot nor violative of the political question doctrine(Legal Information Institute). These limitations prevented most cases from making it all the way to the Supreme Court. However, as time has passed and the Court’s use of Judicial Review increases more cases make it to the court with correct justiciability, and proper jurisdiction. In 1950, 1195 cases made it to the court, in 1975, 3940 cases made it and now on average seven to a thousand cases make it all the way to the court in terms of proper jurisdiction, and present justiciability(Supreme Court of the United States). Nevertheless, with that said only about 80 cases are granted the ability to have oral arguments in the court. More importantly, this increase in cases having the proper criteria to make it to the Court speaks to a change in how people see the court. Citizens have adopted to the fact that the Court has legislative authority through judicial review, and now use the Court as a way to

    Read More

  • Formalism And Realism In Law

    919 Words  | 2 Pages

    It is arguable that H.L.A Hart has made a commendable contribution to the development of legal philosophy. Hart positioned his theory between formalism and realism. On formalism, he looked at what he referred to as ‘easy cases’- cases where clear rules apply to a set of facts, whereby rules are determinant. In contrast, from a realist point of view, he looked at what he referred to as ‘hard cases’- where he conceded the presence of gaps in legal rules, which he claimed that they leave judges with no choice but to exercise discretion. In American the Constitution is accepted as a living document which has to be kept up-to-date to meet new circumstances and sensibilities. This idea seems to accept Hart’s concession on ‘hard cases’ because it is simply suggesting that it is better to create new laws than interpreting old ones.

    Read More

  • Supreme Court Decision Making Analysis

    232 Words  | 1 Pages

    When it comes to the supreme courts making important decisions for society, I strongly believe the “get ahead” method is necessary for civilization. Their main purpose is beneficial to keeping things in order and running ahead of schedule. I don’t think they should wait for the go ahead on what society is ready for, based off our differences, especially the ones that are going on now with the presidential change of command. For example: Nationwide concealed carry that is recognized by all states. It’s one of those decisions where the courts could levy a decision that could go either way. This has been an ongoing battle for some time now, but it’s a decision that must be made by them, because our citizens are torn between the two. The second

    Read More

  • Codified Constitution Essay

    1333 Words  | 3 Pages

    This paragraph will proceed to the clarification of what decision-making is. Decision-making is one of the ‘faces’ of power in a democratic polity. In politics it is often thought that decision-making or law making is solely based in the legislative branch, but the executive branch is increasingly involved in policy-making through their cabinets, thus they complement the legislative branch in law making. (Heywood, Andrew, p.287) Some political scientist argues that as Supreme Court judges do their interpretation of the constitution in a given case, they are actually involved in law making as well, as their “output” could have decisive consequences. A few examples worth mentioning is Brown vs. Broad of education (1954) and Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965). Another theory in this regard is that no law has one single meaning, and therefore judges impose meaning on them, thus all laws are judge made laws. (Heywood, Andrew p.347) Decision-making is therefore a product of the law making process, which all three branches takes part in. So how do we determine effective decision-making? The following paragraph will try to answer

    Read More

More about Rise of Judicial Power: Constitution and Marbury v Madison

Open Document