The Supreme Court is a very powerful part of the government. Because the Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the United States, they alone decide the meaning of the constitution. The Supreme Court has nine justices that decide the constitutionality of cases that petition them.The Supreme Court gets their power through “judicial review” which is the act of declaring IF a law or act of another branch is constitutional or not. The supreme court has had the power of judicial review since the case of Marbury v Madison. The power of judicial review came from the Supreme Court itself in a case called Marbury v Madison. Marbury v Madison gave the Supreme Court the power to void an act of Congress if it is inconsistent with the Constitution. …show more content…
William Marbury petitioned and took it to the Supreme Court where Chief Justice John Marshall ruled it was illegal for Madison to withhold the commissions, but the court didn't have the authority to force Madison to give it to Marbury in the first place because of the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with Article III of the constitution, thus declaring it unconstitutional. Justice John Marshall once stated: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is… If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide the operation of each.” According to Marshall, the court must decide which law is more unconstitutional. Overall,the founding fathers never talked about judicial review in the Constitution, but it was established in the Supreme Court case and it was the first time anyone challenged what the government could …show more content…
There are many ways that the judges can interpret the Constitution. The most common types are judicial Restraint and Activism. Judicial Restraint is when the supreme court chooses to look at previous court decisions that they had, and decide in a similar way. Judicial activism is when the supreme court decides cases based on the idea of the constitution as a living document that can decide problems in current events. Obergefell v Hodges is the court case that made gay marriage legal. Although gay marriage is not talked about in the Constitution, the Supreme Court judges interpreted the Due Process Clause of the fourteenth amendment which guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects. Since the judges interpreted using judicial activism they decided that also applied to gay couples. Plessy v Ferguson was a supreme court case in which Homer Plessy did not leave the “whites only” car on the train. In a majority vote, Plessy lost the case, because the supreme court decided that it was within the state's right to evict him. With the decision of denying equality between the races, the supreme court interpreted the constitution in a negative way. Overall, there are many ways to interpret the Constitution and judicial restraint and activism are some of the possible
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.
The three branches of the federal government is the Legislative, Judicial, and the Executive branch. According to the federalist papers, the Legislative branch is the strongest branch since they enact laws, therefore, by cutting the legislative branch in half by creating a Senate and a House of representatives, it makes the separation of powers more of a level playing field. Furthermore, the Judicial branch is considered the weakest out of the three since it has "...no influence over either the sword or the purse... can take no active resolution whatever... neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must... depend upon the aid of the executive arm... for... judgments” (Hamilton, Federalist 78) This means that it has no monetary or military power and that it relies directly on the legislative and executive branches to follow their rulings which makes sure that the government does not have too much power individually. Therefore, since it is the weakest branch, the court has the power of judicial review, which is the ability to decide whether acts by the other branches are constitutional or not (Hamilton, Federalist 78). Furthermore, one should not be concerned about the use of excess of power since according to Hamilton these are good people who aren’t influenced by outside sources other than the constitution. The separation of these three branches creates a system of checks and balances in which each individual form of government is independent of one another and is able to ensure that each other do not step out of line (Hamilton, Federalist
1116). The doctrine of judicial review is consistent with the Constitution due to the judicial independence needed to the commitment of the Constitution in protecting the individual rights of its citizens. Moreover, Governor Burke of North Carolina, recognized that judicial review was the ultimate expression of judicial independence, stating "civil liberty would be deprived of its surest defenses against the most dangerous usurpations, that is the independency of the Judiciary power and its capacity of protecting individuals from the operation of laws unconstitutional and tyrannical, (Gerber, 2008, p. 1124). The civil liberties granted to the citizens would be left defenseless to unconstitutional laws and a political system, where the government attempts to regulate the lives of the citizens. Furthermore, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, asserted judicial review is essential to the preservation of a government of limited powers, (Hamilton, 2008). Concluding, that without judicial review, the rights and privileges granted to the citizens would be lost. Chief Justice Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison, stated, “federal statues and laws are supreme only if made in pursuance of the Constitution”, further reinforcing judicial review. For over 200 years, citizens continue to experience the positive impact of the doctrine of judicial review. The power of judicial
In the early years of the Constitution the legislative and executive branches held the power to establish and enforce any laws. This was prevalent up until the Marbury v. Madison case in 1803. John Marshall, as the Chief Justice during the case, declared that the Judicial Act of 1801, appointing numerous federalist “midnight judges” to judicial positions in the government, was unconstitutional. By overruling a law passed by Congress itself, Marshall was able to prove the Supreme Court as a center of power that can even have precedence over Congress, the President, and all other courts if it is necessary to determine constitutionality. Also known as Judicial Review, this power was the base on which John Marshall build up the Supreme Court to be respected and equal to the other branches. The power of the Supreme Court and federal law was continued into the next major case, Fletcher v. Peck. When Georgia wanted the land they gave to the Yazoo Company back after elections, their government brought it to court. John Marshall and the Supreme Court declared that land grant contracts cannot be repealed and made contracts “sacred”. Marshall utilized the power of the Supreme Court to overrule the decision made by Georgia. The establishment of Judicial Review is prevalent in the outcome of Fletcher v. Peck in that the federal judiciary
In 1787 Article three of the constitution created the Supreme Court, but not until 1789 was it configured. The way it was originally set up was with one Chief Justice and five associate judges, with all six members being appointed for life. This court serves as the “supreme law of the land”, it has the power to determine if state or federal laws are in conflict with how the Court interprets the constitution.
For some background, this case escalated to the Supreme Court since several groups of same-sex couples from different states, sued state agencies when their marriage was refused to be recognized. As it escalated through appeals, the plaintiffs argued that the states were violating the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Equal Protection, according to the Constitution refers to the fact that, “any State [shall not] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” (23). The opposition of this case was that, 1) The Constitution does not address same-sex marriage as a policy, and 2) The sovereignty of states regarding the decision. Ultimately, and according to the Oyez project, the Court held that “[the Amendment] guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples,” and therefore, same-sex marriage is a fundamental liberty.
The Supreme Court of the United States has the highest authority in the Judicial Branch and is the third branch of government. The function of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution. The Supreme Court looks at federal and state statues and executive actions to determine if they comply with the United States Constitution. On the Supreme Court, there are nine justices that hear cases that have been appealed through the justice system. When the Supreme Court rules in a case that is the la...
The chief justice John Marshall dominated the supreme court for over 30 years.The Marshall court permanently affected the federal government with the decision of major court cases.The Marshall court established the federal government role in the economy and their role in the interstate commerce. The results of the Marshall court strengthened the power of the judicial branch established the concept of implied powers,and the right of America Indians. The Marshall court strengthened the federal government.
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 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
Judiciary as the Most Powerful Branch of Government In answering this question I will first paint a picture of the power that the court holds, and decide whether this is governmental power. Then I will outline the balances that the court must maintain in its decision making and therefore the checks on its actions as an institution that governs America. "Scarcely any political question arises that is not resolved sooner or later into a judicial question." (Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America) If we take Tocqueville on his word then the American Judiciary truly is in a powerful position.
The court determines whether on not an action is constitutional or not through the process of judicial review. Not only do they keep the Legislative and Executive branch in line, they keep other courts in line. Many and very few cases require the Supreme Court to review and overturn decision. Example are the Miranda v. Arizona cases where the police was in the wrong by violating Miranda’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment therefore ruling in Miranda’s favor. Also the Weeks v. United States case was an example of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment being violated was again ruling in the defendent’s favour. Finally, the Plessey v. Furguson case was a little different really displaying the courts power to interpret laws and ruling in the prosecuter’s favour. The Judicial Branch is certainly not the weakest branch and has a more important role than many people
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...
The Constitution has been around for 228 years since the ratification, which is a long time. Times are very different now as compared to those, many years ago. Today, the world is different in so many aspects such as technological and medical advances, population growth, and minorities rising. These are things that the founding fathers would have never thought to be possible. So nowadays, the Supreme Court has to interpret the Constitution a lot more to be able to decide on subject matters because they have a hard time relating today’s problems to back then. For instance, the Third Amendment which states that citizens will not be forced into providing their home as shelter to the soldiers is not really useful today because it was created for
The Constitution or “the supreme law of the land”, as stated in article six in the constitution is very complex. It is complex not only in its actual text full of ambiguities and vagueness, but it becomes more complex when used in practice and interpreted. Constitutional interpretation is significant because it is what decides what the constitution actually means. Constitutional interpretation is a guide judges use to find the legal meaning of the constitution. The interpretation of the constitution and amendments can make a big impact on outcomes. In our government and Judiciary, we see commonly see originalism being used to interpret the constitution and amendments, but there