In the essay Federalist 78, Hamilton focused attention on the judiciary branch and its role in the balance of power among the three branches of government. In order to avoid an omnipotent or tyrannical government, the Constitution enforces limits on Congress that protect individual liberties; However in order to offer such protection, the courts must be independent. Hamilton expresses in his essay that the duties of the Courts are to interpret the laws and prevent both the legislative and executive branches from exceeding their granted powers. “The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature….The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.” Additionally, Hamilton clarifies that the while the Constitution is both the fundamental and supreme law, the Courts must also place the will of the people ahead of that of the representatives. In July of 1793, President Washington issued a request to the United States first Chief-Justice, John Jay, for an advisory opinion on the constitutional status of his Neutrality ... ... middle of paper ... ...from federal custody.
The United States Constitution is one of the oldest documents in U.S. history created by our Founding Fathers to limit the power of the federal government and protect the natural born rights of citizens. These forward thinking individuals realized that sometimes people in positions of authority could potentially abuse their power hence the creation and framework of United States Constitution was established. The Founding Fathers intentions which were deemed fair and consistent would give people the protection they once feared could be taken away. Though these intentions were viewed in the eyes of fairness and consistency the Constitution could be interpreted multiple ways. The Constitution could be viewed in two different ways, a strict or
This case affirmed the constitutionally granted power of Congress to make exceptions it deems necessary and limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish is important because it allows the judiciary to decide on issues that developed based on changes in society since the Constitution was written. The writers of the Constitution could not foresee how society would change over time, but recognized it would. This decision provides the judiciary the means to apply what is written in the Constitution to an ever-changing world.
Judicial review is the primary role of the Supreme Court. Judicial review is the power to examine, and overturn the actions by the legislature and executive branch of both the federal and state governments. Marbury v. Madison (1803), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court established judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution (A. pg.178). Article III says a court will exist and it will be appointed, a court will have jurisdiction over cases involving federal issues, original and appellate. Although the immediate effect of the decision in this care was to deny power to the Court, in the long run it increased the Court’s power by establishing the rule that it is the jurisdiction and duty of the judicial department to determine the... ... middle of paper ... ...antage of a chance to have more power, as a result another branch loses power, hindering the ability of the branches to be effective.
Although justices belong to different parties and they may have views determined by their political beliefs, the role of a justice is to carefully determine and interpret laws based on the Constitution. To do this, they must provide legitimate reason to defend their decisions and therefore, judicial review is beneficial for a successful nation. As a result of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the case and therefore could not issue a writ of mandamus. This is the first instance of judicial review by the Supreme Court. Regarding judicial review, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in his opinion that, “It is empha... ... middle of paper ... ...es his point by saying that it does not specify the extent of those powers.
Marbury v. Madison: The Legacy of Judicial Review 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.
. “. The number of justices changed several times during the Courts first century. A number of changes were to the number of justices after the Judiciary Act of 1789 in part to accommodate the justices’ duties in... ... middle of paper ... ...embers are crucial in affecting the interpretations of the Constitution and important amendments relevant to citizens (Champion, 2003, p. 203). References Abraham, H. (1983).
Marbury v. Madison is possibly the most important view in Supreme Court history. It tenable the Court’s control of judicial appraisal its aptitude to support or deny the constitutionality of congressional or decision making movements and established the judiciary as a self-governing, co-equal division of the federal administration. In 1803, the Supreme Court, controlled by Chief Justice John Marshall, chooses the milestone or radical case of William Marbury against James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States and settles the lawful belief of judicial review the aptitude of the Supreme Court to boundary Congressional power by announcing legislation unauthorized in the new nation. The court lined that a new president, Jefferson, through his secretary of state, Madison, was mistaken to stop Marbury from getting the bureau as justice of the peace for District of Columbia. However, it likewise ruled that the court didn’t have jurisdiction in the case and couldn’t strength Jefferson and Madison to seat Marbury.
On the contrary, it seems that judicial review furthers republican principle, as the Supreme Court is the guardian of the constitution, that is, the fundamental law which accounts for the sovereignty of the people. Cited Works: Andreas Hess, “Republicanism,” ch. 3 of American Social and Political Thought: A Concise Introduction (New York: NYU Press, 2000), pp. 28-36 Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, John Jay, and Michael A. Genovese. The Federalist Papers.
Accordingly, Chief Justice Marshall ruled that Marbury and the others received appointments via the appropriate procedures governed by law, thus had the justification to a writ, as well as, the fact that the law needed to accord a solution to the dilemma. Furthermore, Marshall maintained the courts were responsible to ensure individual rights even if they were contrary to presidential design. As to the Supreme Courts authority to issue such a writ per the Constitution, Marshall ruled that the Constitution addresses this issue in Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which grants the right to do so, but this one was unconstitutional because it did not involve a case of original jurisdiction, thus would be invalid (LAWNIX, n.d.). Hence, the Supreme Court could not issue a writ of mandamus; therefore, Marbury received a denial for his commission. Because of this decision, even though Marbury did not obtain his commission, the long- term effect of this monumental decision magnified the power of the Court to mandate via judicial review what a law proclaims, thus establishing the court as the final arbitrator of the