Examining the View that the Supreme Court is an Effective Protector of Civil Liberties In 1789, the founders of the Constitution set out the power of the Supreme Court in Article III section 2, and, arguably, in the Supremacy clause in Article 6. These clauses gave the Supreme Court the power to protect the Constitution, and by doing so, the power to protect civil liberties. The strength of the Supreme Court is essential in protecting civil liberties that are protected by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has also increased its power through court cases and through judicial revolutions. One case that has significantly altered the power that the Supreme Court is able to exert was Marbury v Madison 1803. This was the landmark case in which Chief Justice John Marshall established that the Court had the right to rule on the constitutionality of federal and state laws. This decision established the right of judicial review even though this power was not given to the Court under the Constitution. Two judicial revolutions since 1945 have also strengthened the position of the Court. They have liberalised the concept of standing so that almost any group could bring its case before federal bench. The Court also broadened the scope of relief to permit action behalf of groups of people in class action cases. By the end of the 1970s, the Court enjoyed wide ranging power and therefore in theory, the Court was in a better position to protect civil liberties. The Bush and Reagan administrations sought to put an end to this liberalisation of the court by appointing conservative judges. However, the new judges did not want to relinquish their po... ... middle of paper ... ...n Roe v Wade, the mother was allowed to have an abortion (although she already had, the precedent was now set) the foetus' rights were not protected. The Court may sometimes act for personal and political motives, but the checks and balances built into the system still allow civil liberties to be in part protected, and this is the method of dissenting opinions. The Court is an effective protector of civil liberties once it has chosen to take on a case. The question for whether or not the Court is an effective protector of civil liberties rests on the personalities and political opinions dominating the court as to whether or not a case is taken up. This is what decides the extent to which the Court will go the protect civil liberties. It has the power to do it, but individuals may chose not to exercise this power.
The Supreme Court was important in both suppressing and aiding the Civil Rights Movement. However, decisions taken by the President, the continued white opposition and improvements in media communications also had an effect. Although all were important, the Civil Rights movement alone would have reached the same end without the help of the Supreme Court, and the devotion of its many members and leaders is the major factor in advancing Civil Rights.
Roper v. Simmons is a perfect example of the evolving role of the Supreme Court, the sources the Supreme Court used to reach the ruling in this case is quite questionable. While I agree with the Supreme Court about protecting the younger citizens of America the Supreme Court must have the law to back up their ruling. Though in this case they do not the Supreme Court used a combination of foreign policy, moral decency, and state laws as the legal foundation for this decision. None of these things are appropriate sources for deciding what is constitutional and what is not. The sources used for deciding the constitutionality of a case are the constitution and federal statues. While the case can be loosely tied in with the eighth amendment clause of “cruel and unusual punishment” there is no backing for the decision made. The Supreme Court with this case decided that it did not overturn the previous case of Stanford v. Kentucky, which ruled on this same issue fifteen years earlier. Yet the court stated that the prevailing moral code had altered therefore they changed their opinion. The truly shocking issue with this is that the neither law nor constitution had changed regarding this issue in the interceding fifteen years. The grave problem with this case is that the Supreme Court used the case of Roper V. Simmons to create law based of invalid sources.
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 analyze the positive effects of the doctrine in American politics.
...er to adjudicate a case, or hear about a case and then decide on it. These types of cases do not involve as many parties to reach decision. Criminal cases for example, typically involve a plaintiff, defendant, a lawyer for each party, a judge, and a jury. Administrative law cases do not have a jury. A judge will then make a decision after all evidence is reviewed. If the party is not pleased with that decision may appeal the case. From there, it is heard by an appellate board. If the party is still displeased, they can request that it be appealed a second time and it is then moved to federal court (Beatty, Samuelson, Bredeson 68).
Tyranny riddles many forms of government, such as oligarchy, absolute monarchy, dictatorship, autocracy, and totalitarianism. In May of 1787, delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia gathered to create a stronger central government -- while avoiding the tyranny that so many other forms of government had allowed for. James Madison, of one those very same delegates, defined tyranny as “The accumulation of all powers...in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many...” in Federalist Paper #47. The key to the protection against tyranny in the American Constitution was the way in which power was divided. The Constitution guarded against tyranny by making provisions for federalism, the separation of powers, checks and balances of power, and fairly equal congressional power.
Judicial Activism- judges should interpret and apply the law in the light of ongoing changes in conditions and values
Court will be announced. I believe that the case should be held at a later date
The Role of Courts in American Politics The third branch of the federal government is the judicial branch. Before the existence of the Constitution, a system of state courts was in place. Through much controversy and compromise a decision was accomplished, which put in place the Supreme Court. In Article III, Section 1, "The judicial power of the United Statesshall be vested in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The Supreme Court was initially set up as a part of the separation of powers in the American political system.
The First Amendment and Conservative Rulings of the Supreme Court The authors of the Constitution of the United States created a magnificent list of liberties which were, at the time ascribed, to most people belonging to the United States. The main author, James Madison, transported the previous ideas of fundamental liberties from the great libertarians around the world, such as John Lilburne, John Locke, William Walwyn and John Milton. Madison and other previous libertarians of his time were transposed into seventeen different rights which were to be secured to all those in the United States. These seventeen civil liberties were compressed into ten different groupings which were designated as the "Bill of Rights."
This court depends on several different factors the three most important factors are personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and minimum contacts.
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.
Declared in the U.S. Constitution every American or should it be person, is guaranteed civil rights. Civil rights did not just consist of “freedom of speech and assembly,” but as well as “the right to vote, the right to equal protection under the law, and procedural guarantees in criminal and civil rights,” (Dawood). It was not until 1791, that the Bill of Rights was appended to the constitution, which helped clarify these rights to citizens. “Rights were eventually applied against actions of the state governments in a series of cases decide by the Supreme Court,” Dawood stated. In previous years (1790-1803), the Supreme Court had little say in decisions being made by government. As time went on the Supreme Court took on more responsibility and started making additional decisions, which in time helped minorities gain their civil rights. It took a couple of years, as a matter of fact till the 1900’s for the Supreme Court to get out of the “ideology of white supremacy and the practice of racism,” (Smith). Though the decisions of the Supreme Court were not all that appreciated in the beginning, following the 20th century the court really facilitated in the advancements of civil rights.
...ave an effect on the time the attorney, client, and court spend and the amount of money taxpayers will have to put towards cases such as these.
There is a question as to whether the court should have the right to decide whether to enforce constitutionality based on what is explicitly written within the Constitution or what the court decides is implied protections within the Constitution. The Bill of Rights covers multiples protections including the right to privacy in beliefs, unlawful search and seizure without a warrant, and personal information. It is my personal belief that the court should consider the implied protections of the Constitution in addition to what is explicitly written. The simplest justification for this is that the world and needs to people within the United States have changed drastically since the 18th century when the Constitution was written. With that said, as the world transitions from one focused on private life to one that is considerably more open through social media and the constant exposure that individuals permit, the court will also find themselves needing to define public and private areas of the individual’s life and rights in order to maintain consistency.
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.