What Is The Importance Of Judicial Review In Supreme Court History

Shaping The Courts of America: The Judiciary Act of 1789 On the 17th of September in 1787, the delegates of the thirteen American colonies gathered at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and signed the document that is known as the Constitution of the United States of America. On the 21st of June in 1788, the Constitution had been ratified by eleven of the thirteen colonies, and other laws and acts were being discussed as well by the representatives. While the Constitution had done a phenomenal job at creating and outlining the legislative system in Article 1 and the executive system in Article 2, it was very vague when describing the judiciary system and its powers in Article 3. As a result, the Senate deemed it necessary to appoint a committee responsible for making judicial outline.

Jessica Goodier CJUS 101 Kyung Jhi 6 November 2014 The Marbury versus Madison case in 1803 is one of the first Supreme Court cases to apply the judicial review rule. Judicial review is a document in which legislative and executive actions are sent to review the judiciary. This principle was written by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803. His decision led the Supreme Court become a separated branch in the government.

Judicial review is an important part of our constitutional system of government. • How did the Supreme Court acquire the power of judicial review? • Do you think the Supreme Court should have the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional? Why or why not? • How does judicial review protect the rights of the minority?

In the case of Marbury v. Madison Chief Justice John Marshall utilized his power in a legal but cunning way to alter the balance of power between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. Justice Marshall used his opinion in the courts to manipulate the Constitution, creating what we know as judicial review. Because the Constitution does not explicitly state what judicial review is Justice Marshall is known for creating it. In an effort to resolve the case, Justice Marshall answered three questions supported by strong arguments. The wide acceptance of his doctrine created judicial review-- the Supreme Court’s ability to uphold or deny the constitutionality of congressional or executive actions.

To protect the rights that the judiciary must be given the power of judicial review to declare as null and void laws that it deems unconstitutional. People of the Constitution claimed that judicial review gave the judiciary power superior to that of the legislative branch. Hamilton argues that both branches are inferior to the power of the people and that the judiciary's role is to ensure that the legislature remains a servant of the Constitution and the people who created it, not a master. Even though judicial review is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution.

In Marbury v. Madison (1803) it was announced by the Supreme Court for the very first time, that if an act was deemed inconsistent with the constitution then the court was allowed to declare the act void. Thomas Jefferson’s secretary of state, James Madison, denied William Marbury of his commission. President John Adams appointed William Marbury the justice of peace for the District of Columbia during his last day in office. Madison denied Marbury of this commission because he believed that because it was not issued before the termination of Adams presidency, that it was invalid. Marbury himself started a petition, along with three others who were in a similar situation.

A Federalist, Marbury, took it to court so that he may argue that Madison should have delivered the commissions. The Chief Justice at the time John Marshall made the decision in Marbury v. Madison that created the principle of

This led to the Supreme Court having the power of Judicial Review. Judicial Review is when the Supreme Court reviews a law passed by the legislative branch to see if it is constitutional or not. The Supreme Court received this power because of the Marbury v. Madison case. Since the Supreme Court has the final say on what the Constitution means, they get to decide if a law follows the

Marbury v. Madison was heard in 1803 and is considered a landmark United States Supreme Court case which helped the Court form the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under a new article of the Constitution. This was a landmark decision because it helped to define the difference in power between the executive and judicial branches of the American government. It was the first time that a court ruled that they had the power to declare an act of Congress void if it is not consistent with the values of the Constitution. McCulloch v. Maryland was decided by the Supreme Court in 1819, and was known for asserting national supremacy for state action in areas of their constitutionally granted authority.

Although the notion of judicial review, which was not included in the Constitution, the Supreme Court defeated a congressional initiative in the Mary Libby Madison case to legitimize it. Early in the twentieth century, the concept of judicial review was accepted by the courts and was applied in many cases involving States. The independence of the court has also been maintained to this day. As Hamilton put it in his paper, as long as the judge performs the task in accordance with the constitution, the term of office of the judge is permanent and not temporary. The court decided to uphold the constitution and has been checked and removed any law that does not uphold the constitutional spirit.

There was much disagreement among the framers in regard to the strength of the Supreme Court’s power as a branch of the federal government. As with the disagreement over policy concerning slavery, no consensus could be arrived at. So the founders deliberately resolved to stay silent on the scope and range of the Court’s powers, rather leaving that up to the Legislature (Bianco & Canon, 2015). Many changes have been witnessed throughout American history to the Judiciary branch, ranging from its number of justices to its complex, web-like structure of district and circuit courts.

The Judiciary Act established the United States Federal Judicial Branch. Many feared that establishing all judicial powers into a single court would leave the door wide open for tyranny. Not knowing that the three branches of government have a pretty good checks and balance system. The Act would give the Supreme Court

Although a plethora of critics mention that the judicial branch is considered the weakest out of the three branches, none of the branches are truly weak. The judicial branch still plays a prevalent role in checking and balancing the other two branches. The purpose of judicial review is mainly to imply judicial supremacy in interpreting different various types of laws. In Federalist 78 by Alexander Hamilton, he decreed that judicial courts must “respect the right of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power (Woll 359).” Judicial courts must have complete independence of the courts of justice and be able to deem Congressional laws as unconstitutional.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the time was Chief Justice John Marshall, and he declared that this whole process of delivering commissions for judges, the Judiciary Act, was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court declared this act illegal, because it gave the Supreme Court a power that they were forbidden to have. This is when the first law was declared unconstitutional and judicial review came into

The charter was made as a moral guideline for human life, not a convenience to the time period it was created it. The charter being somewhat ambiguous, judicial review has been instated to keep it in line. Judicial review “is the power of courts of law to review the actions of the executive and legislative branches” (legal-dictionary). Judicial review helps the constitution stay persistent and current to suite today’s society while still respecting the entrenchment of the charter. Arguments against judicial review state that judges are legal experts, not moral experts (Waluchow, sept 26).