The US Constitution gives the president the power to veto bills that Congress is trying to pass. However, it does not explicitly state that the Supreme Court has the power to strike down a law of Congress. This power of judicial review is a product of the Court's own interpretation in Marbury v. Madison.
Chief Justice John Marshall made the following statements concerning the Court in Marbury v. Madison:
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."
"So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty."
Questions:
1) What is John Marshall saying about the Supreme Court and its role?
2) Was Marbury v. Madison a power grab by Marshall? If so, was this act unconstitutional? If so, what could the other branches of government do about it? If not, should the legislative and executive branches assume powers for themselves that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution?
3) Is the American government better off with or without the Supreme Court having the power of judicial review? Explain.
3. I personally believe that the American overnment is better off with the power of judicial review. Before judicial review, the three branches didn't exactly have equal power. The Supreme Court didn't have any say directly in the government or the laws being passed.
ReplyDeleteWell said, Kerline. Do you (or anyone else) believe that this was deliberately done by the founding fathers?
ReplyDeleteAlexander Hamilton did recognize that the judicial branch would be weak and defended the power of judicial review. He said,"the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them... The judiciary ... has no influence over either the sword or the purse." It has "neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."
Was Hamilton naive to think that the Supreme Court would be able to perform its function without explicitly stating that they had that power in the Constitution?
1) John Marshall is saying that the judicial branch decides what the law is, the Marbury vs. Madison is an example where the judicial branch has to decide what law should be followed. This usually is a conflict when a law is not stated in the constitution and therefore the supreme court will have to decide what the law would be.
ReplyDelete01. John Marshall states that the judicial branch has the authority on specific laws and know the meaning of that law. So if any law is an opposition to constitution and doesn't involve the judicial branch, then the Court is in charge in handling that law. The reason being is because they determine whether this law is an important issue to the government. Also, solve the conflicting manners it has.
ReplyDelete1) John Marshall is saying that because it is the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is, if a law is in opposition to the constitution, the judicial branch has the duty to declare that law unconstitutional if brought up in a case. I completely agree with John Marshall because their job title as judges is to interpret the laws and declaring a law unconstitutional is a way of completing their job.
ReplyDelete#3: i agree with Kerline the American government is better off with the judicial review because without it branches will not have equal power causing conflicts between each branch. With that said,the supreme court having power to judicial review they can make sure that the law Congress is passing didn't violated the U.S constitution. Also the supreme court can make sure that the president is taking actions that are allowed by the U.S constitution.
ReplyDelete