The judicial branch, from its creation in the United States has been that of a large debate. The problem with judicial branch that many argue is that the people of this country do not elect the Supreme Court of the United States. However, the President who the country votes into office appoints them to the Court. Judicial review has a long historical background, dating back to Hamilton’s argument in The Federalist Papers, all of which impacts how the Court uses judicial review today regarding civil liberties. In addition, judicial review has been applied in landmark Supreme Court cases such as Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, and Griswold v. Connecticut. The United States Supreme Court’s power in relation to the other branches
…show more content…
Madison is a monumental Supreme Court case because it established the Court’s use of judicial review. The court stated that Jefferson ultimately won this case but lost the power of which branch has authority over the interpretation of the Constitution. This case is remarkably impactful and argued to this day. Many point to the fact that the Supreme Court should not have taken the case in the first place as it was not under their jurisdiction. If the Court never took on Marbury v. Madison, one must wonder if the judicial branch would have simply claimed judicial review within a different context (van Alstyne …show more content…
This continued until the 1900’s when the Supreme Court went through multiple transitional use of judicial review (Aughenbaugh). From 1789 and throughout the Civil War, the Court’s use of judicial review was most prevalent in cases that dealt with federalism (Aughenbaugh). During the Industrial Revolution in the U.S, that court saw cases that faced business related topics (Aughenbaugh). Lastly, from the years 1937 and to present day, the Supreme Court refocused their interest to what is referred to as “Discrete and insular minorities” after forwarding the power of business regulations to Congress under the Commerce Clause (Aughenbaugh). The Supreme Court case U.S v Carolene Products Co. is most famous for what is referred to as footnote number four, where the Court instated their heightened scrutiny for the discrete and insular minorities, and not for other items such as economic issues (Ackerman 715). It is described as the “most famous constitutional law footnote” (Ackerman 713). The footnote added a higher level of scrutiny, now referred to as strict scrutiny, to laws that met the following points. First being a violation to the facial challenge, meaning that the legislation violates part of the Constitution at face value (Ackerman 715). Secondly, the legislation in some
Madison is a monumental Supreme Court case because it established the Court’s use of judicial review. The court stated that Jefferson ultimately won this case but lost the power of which branch has authority over the interpretation of the Constitution. This case is remarkably impactful and argued to this day. Many point to the fact that the Supreme Court should not have taken the case in the first place as it was not under their jurisdiction. If the Court never took on Marbury v. Madison, one must wonder if the judicial branch would have simply claimed judicial review within a different context (van Alstyne …show more content…
This continued until the 1900’s when the Supreme Court went through multiple transitional use of judicial review (Aughenbaugh). From 1789 and throughout the Civil War, the Court’s use of judicial review was most prevalent in cases that dealt with federalism (Aughenbaugh). During the Industrial Revolution in the U.S, that court saw cases that faced business related topics (Aughenbaugh). Lastly, from the years 1937 and to present day, the Supreme Court refocused their interest to what is referred to as “Discrete and insular minorities” after forwarding the power of business regulations to Congress under the Commerce Clause (Aughenbaugh). The Supreme Court case U.S v Carolene Products Co. is most famous for what is referred to as footnote number four, where the Court instated their heightened scrutiny for the discrete and insular minorities, and not for other items such as economic issues (Ackerman 715). It is described as the “most famous constitutional law footnote” (Ackerman 713). The footnote added a higher level of scrutiny, now referred to as strict scrutiny, to laws that met the following points. First being a violation to the facial challenge, meaning that the legislation violates part of the Constitution at face value (Ackerman 715). Secondly, the legislation in some