Over the course of the history of the United States government, the judiciary branch has evolved and changed with time. Specifically, the Supreme Court of the United States has arguably evolved the most, changing its motivations and philosophies overtime as the country around it has evolved. Additionally, the amount of external political influence of the Supreme Court has also increased as the courts began to modernize over time along with the ideas and views of the people, all while trying to maintain the judiciary branch within the scope of the Constitution and law. Historically, the Supreme Court of the United States has developed over three key periods, and how the Supreme Court developed over these three eras has helped shaped the Judiciary system to what it is today: a judiciary body responsive to political issues through interpretation of the law and the Constitution as a living organism. And while the Supreme Court, through judicial activism, considers political issues, issues outside the realm of their scope under the Constitution, they maintain impartiality by following the framework of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court’s first era began with the founding of the country and the ratification of the Constitution. During the first era, the Supreme Court developed its powers as the judiciary branch. During this era, two major frameworks of the Supreme Court were developed under Chief Justice John Marshall during the Marshall court, the power of judicial review, and the concept of national supremacy. In 1803, the case of Marbury v. Madison established the Supreme Court’s power to review and declare the constitutionality of bills by congress. In Marbury v. Madison case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Judiciary Act of 178...
... middle of paper ...
...issues. As the Courts modernized, so did their acceptance of external political influence. This has been seen to develop in the transitional period of the eras such as the 1937 switch in time to save nine, and the reversal of the separate but equal doctrine, and even in modern times in the legalization of same sex marriage. Although the Supreme Court is insulated from external political influence by design, the modernization of the court has caused leaks over time to address the evolving way in which the constitution must to be interpreted, slowly allowing for external political influences to at least be addressed by the Supreme Courts. Therefore it can be argued that the Supreme Court is immune to external political influences by design, but as it developed over history, its evolution necessitated the addressing of external political influences to shape the court.
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.
From 1992 to 2005, the Supreme Court’s decisions mostly mirrored public opinion. After Rehnquist’s passing in 2005, the Supreme Court has swung more in the direction of the conservative party than in pervious years. The conservative agenda is becoming more prominent than it was under Rehnquist and before O’Connor retired. Besides swing the court to the consertive side, Rehnquist’s passing also ended the longest running group of Justices to serve together. They had...
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.
John Marshall, Supreme Court Justice, created legal precedence in the historical case, Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Throughout history he is portrayed as the fountainhead of judicial review. Marshall asserted the right of the judicial branch of government to void legislation it deemed unconstitutional, (Lemieux, 2003). In this essay, I will describe the factual circumstances and the Supreme Court holdings explaining the reasoning behind Chief Justice Marshall’s conclusions in the case, Marbury v. Madison. Furthermore, I will evaluate whether the doctrine of judicial review is consistent with the Constitution and analysis the positive effects of the doctrine in American politics.
People have always been concerned about our judicial system making massive decisions in an undemocratic manner and while there are parts of our nation’s history (Jost). There have been decisions that were dreadful for our nation, Dred Scott v. Sandford; but there are decisions that everyone can agree with in retrospect, Brown v. Board of Education. Also, there are decisions that still divide us as a nation, Bush v. Gore and Roe V. Wade. There are a lot of issues that come from our current judicial system; however, I understand that the problems that come from it are not going to come from any quick fix, and we may have to live with some of them. Looking at the history of the judicial branch of the United States Government, I believe it needs to be limited in its judicial review power, but have certain exceptions where necessary in some cases.
Such precedent setting decisions are usually derived from the social, economic, political, and legal philosophy of the majority of the Justices who make up the Court, and also represent a segment of the American population at a given time in history. Seldom has a Supreme Court decision sliced so deeply into the basic fabric that composes the tapestry and direction of American law or instigated such profound changes in cherished rights, values, and personal prerogatives of individuals: the right to privacy, the structure of the family, the status of medical technology and its impact upon law and life, and the authority of state governments to protect the lives of their citizens.(3-4)
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.
The Supreme Court, which sees almost 150 petitions per week, called cert petitions, must carefully select the cases that they want to spend their time and effort on (Savage 981). If they didn’t select them carefully, the nine justices would quickly be overrun, so they have put in place a program to weed through the court cases to pick out the small number they will discuss. There are a few criteria that are used to judge whether or not a case will be tried. The first is whether or not the lower courts decided the case based on another one of the Supreme Court’s decisions for they will investigate these in order to withhold or draw back their conclusion that they made in their court case. Another is the case’s party alignment: sometimes the justices will pick cases that will align with their party beliefs, like trying to get a death row inmate off of his death sentence. They also make claims about the “life” of the case- the Supreme Court only hears “live” cases- they do not try to go back in time and re-mark a case that has long since been decided (Savage 981). Lastly, they like to take cases where the lower courts did not decide with one another -these cases can have t o do with interpretations of the law that have been left up to the lower courts and should be specifically defined by the Supreme Court (Savage 982).
The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican government, he and his fellow justices sought to perpetuate their Federalist principles in the United States’ court system. In one of the most memorable court cases of all time--the case of Marbury v. Madison-- Marshall established the idea of judicial review and strengthened the power of the judicial branch in the government. Abiding by his Federalist ideals, Marshall decided cases that would explicitly limit the power of the state government and broaden the strengths of the national government. Lastly, the Marshall Court was infamous for determining the results of cases that dealt with the interpretation of the Constitution and the importance of contracts in American society. The Marshall Court, over the span of a mere three decades, managed to influence the life of every American citizen even to this day by impacting the development of the judicial branch, establishing a boundary between the state and national government, and making declarations on the sanctity of contracts ("The Marshall Court"...
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).
In the early years of the eighteenth Century, the young United States of America were slowly adapting to the union and the way the country was governed. And just like the country, the governmental powers were starting to develop. Since the creation of the Constitution and due to the Connecticut Compromise, there is the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial Power. But the existence of those powers was not always that naturally. In these crucial times, the Judicial Power had problems controlling the other powers. It was a challenge for the Supreme Court to exercise the powers granted by the new Constitution. Federal Government was not generally appreciated and its formation also caused many disagreements and debates.
The United States of America is one of the most powerful nation-states in the world today. The framers of the American Constitution spent a great deal of time and effort into making sure this power wasn’t too centralized in one aspect of the government. They created three branches of government to help maintain a checks and balance system. In this paper I will discuss these three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, for both the state and federal level.
The power the Supreme Court has today stems from the case of Marbury v. Madison: a hearing
The American Court System is an important part of American history and one of the many assets that makes America stand out from other countries. It thrives for justice through its structured and organized court systems. The structures and organizations are widely influenced by both the State and U.S Constitution. The courts have important characters that used their knowledge and roles to aim for equality and justice. These court systems have been influenced since the beginning of the United State of America. Today, these systems and law continue to change and adapt in order to keep and protect the peoples’ rights.
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.