Judicial Review Pros And Cons

There was discussion of judicial review in Federalist No. 78, written by Alexander Hamilton, which explained that the federal courts would have the power of judicial review. Hamilton stated that under the Constitution, the federal judiciary would have the power to declare laws unconstitutional. He also stated that this was appropriate because it would protect the people against abuse of power by Congress.

The judicial review strengthens the constitutional principle of checks and balances. In the 1789 judiciary act and Judiciary act of 1801 had the right to allow the writs of mandamus. Meaning that they court should have power and including the fact that they are forced to do something. John Marshall weakened the power of the supreme court by getting rid of the power. However he did improve the branch by creating the judicial review.

In addition, James Madison stated the idea of Checks and Balances and what it will do to the government, “...the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that they may be a check on the other... The three branches should not be so far separated as to have no constitutional control over each other.” This statement means that each branch should have a different power, so they wouldn’t have any constitutional control over each other. That makes each branch check on the other branches to make sure they are doing everything correctly. One way that the Judicial Branch can check on the Legislative Branch is that when Congress creates laws, the Court can declare laws unconstitutional because some laws might not be a good idea for the people of the country, so the Judicial has the power to take away the possible law.

Sophie Byrne John Ward POLI 100 29 March 2023 Two Week Essay Assignment Week 10 & 11 In "The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review," published in the Yale Law Journal, Jeremy Waldron argues against the concept of judicial review, which is a concept allowing courts to strike down laws that are deemed unconstitutional. Waldron argues that this concept undermines democracy and should be replaced by a system of parliamentary sovereignty; where the legislative branch holds the power to determine the final outcome when interpreting the constitution.

Only then will the judges be able to protect the constitution and the rights and privileges of the citizens, along with changing the minds of the framers who thought the judicial branch was weak. Hamilton emphasized that it was necessary for the judicial branch to take advantage of its power of checks and balances and make itself independent, however, still continue to work hand in hand with the

In America, judges have become too politicised . The government in power for example could be republican. They might appoint a judge who aligns with their political view and policy, causing that judge to interpret the constitution in such a way that allows the government to get away with something or may change rulings on a right. An example of this polarisation is the famous Bush v Gore case in 2000. In this case, a recount of votes in counties in Florida had not been undertaken, as was required due to the low majority.

I agree with the Supreme Court on placing emphasizes on keeping the presidential power in check but respecting the doctrine of separation of powers. The Court has the power to hear cases that involve federal questions because the

As stated earlier I believe that the Judicial Branch should have the right to decide if a law is constitutional or not. The court case of Marbury vs. Madison is important because it brought up this point. I believe this is true because the judicial branch is very small, they have no other checks on any other branch, and they don’t receive any money. Because they are the branch to decide if something is lawful or not they are the perfect branch to make the decision on whether something is constitutional or

Ultimately, the judicial branch has to go back to what the founding fathers intended for the court’s purpose and to use the power accordingly. To maintain the strength of the branch, the courts must think about what is constitutionally right. Their decisions should reflect the amendments as well. “Judicial power plays an important role in the rule of law, even while it comes frequently into tension with norms of democratic rule” (Friedman & Delaney, 2011, p. 57, para. 1). This is the only way that citizens will feel like their rights are truly protected.

This ability is a check and balance on the separation of powers. The courts with judicial review power is allowed to invalidate laws and decisions that may be incompatible with the higher authority or in this case a written constitution. Judicial review can be looked at two different ways separated by civil and common law they present different ideas on judicial review. Common law judges are capable of creating new legal principles and they can also reject invalid legal principles. In civil law the judges are those that will apply the law and they do not have the power to create nor destroy legal principles.

The U.S. Constitution is a Living Document Since society has changed dramatically between the eighteenth and twenty first century, the U.S Constitution should be considered as a living document because it is not applicable in today's society and therefore in need of some changes in order to fit into today’s society. When our founding fathers wrote the constitution they did not have in mind all the technological advancements the U.S. will one day have. Such as the internet, television, radio, and so on. Other’s will say that if the constitution was considered a living document then judges will take advantage and manipulate the constitution to their benefit, but they don’t realize that people already manipulate the constitution. There were laws that contradicted the constitution like the Judiciary Act of 1789, which contradicts Article III of the Constitution in the Marbury v. Madison case.

Madison court case that took place in 1803. The law that was declared by the Supreme Court at this hearing was that a court has the power to declare an act of Congress void if it goes against the Constitution. This case took place because President John Adams had appointed William Marbury as justice of the peace in the District of Columbia, and the new president, Thomas Jefferson, did not agree with this decision. William Marbury was not appointed by the normal regulation, which was that the Secretary of State, James Madison, needed to make a notice of the appointment. James Madison did not follow through and make a notice of Marbury’s appointment; therefore, he sued James Madison, which was where the Supreme Court came in place.

The first article of the Constitution says "ALL legislative powers...shall be vested in a Congress." The second article then reads "the executive power...in a President." The third article gives the "judicial power of the United States in one Supreme Court" and "in such inferior Courts as the Congress...may establish."

The meaning of the Constitution may be puzzling and unclear but I find that the Living Constitution approach is the most practical for making judgements about particular cases. If I were a justice in the Supreme Court, I would use this approach because it’s based on a system that the document of the Constitution sets up a set of timeless principles that are applied in today’s world and not simply based on the time when it was written. The Constitution should be used to help solve problems by coming up with what these principles mean when applied in today’s world. An example of this is the controversy of whether marriage can or cannot be denied to gay people because of equality.

Much has been discussed about the ‘undemocratic’ nature of judicial review, but this is a problem only when democratic institutions are of good working order (Waldron, 1360). With the large power vested in the president in Algeria, introducing a body that could check the currently asymmetric separation of powers would be a just compensation for a flawed democratic