Judicial review

their argument. The Supreme Court should have the power to overturn unconstitutional federal laws. Federalist No. 78, the Marbury v. Madison decision, Article III of the Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789 are prime examples to prove that the judicial branch has the authority to do so. First of all, in Federalist No. 78, written by Alexander Hamilton in 1788; declares that, “[The] courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature...”(Doc D). In other…

for the case to be valid. Marshall’s creation of judicial review can be held to the same standard of three questions. First, is judicial review constitutionally acceptable? Second, if judicial review is acceptable, does the Judiciary Act violate the Constitution by Marshall’s reading? And third, if the two previous questions hold up, did Marshall even interpret the Constitution correctly. On the question of the constitutionality of judicial review, there is a relative grey area as the…

What we call judicial review today came about in the case Marbury v. Madison (1803), when Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall assumed that power from the legislator. Marbury v Madison made it clear that the Supreme Court had claimed Judicial Supremacy in deciding unconstitutionality. In the book, Taking Away the Constitution From the Courts, author Mark Tushnet argues, “Doing away with judicial review would have one clear effect: It would return all constitutional decision-making to the…

judges’ “oath or affirmation” to uphold the Constitution, as described in Article VI. Although Hamilton argues that the judiciary is in “continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced” by the other two branches of government, with judicial review the Supreme Court can decide if a treaty violates the provisions of existing law or…

Kerela case asserted the Basic structure doctrine of the constitution. The concerned question was if the Parliament had unrestricted power to amend the Constitution under Article 368. The judgment given held that the Indian judiciary had the power to review and strike down the amendments made by the Parliament if they were against or altered the basic structure doctrine. In this judgment, separation of powers was included in the basic structure of the constitution, though it is not followed in…

standards of decency calls for evolvement of laws, the idea of rewriting the American Constitution every 19 years elicit many concerns. First, rewriting the Constitution is unnecessary and impractical given our use of precedents and the power of judicial review. Not only so, there are dangers of rewriting the law so often because there are social risks and consequences…

of a constitution such as the separation of powers. In the UK the constitutional reform act certainly tried to implement a separation of powers. The Supreme Court in the UK took over the existing role of the Law Lords as well as some powers of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and removed the functions of Speaker of the House of Lords and Head of the Judiciary of England and Wales from the office of Lord Chancellor which applied a greater separation of powers. However in the U.S they…

and this is due to judicial activism. Judicial activism is when courts do not confine themselves to the interpretations of current laws, but instead they create law based on personal or political considerations.The term judicial activism is defined in The Supreme Court by Lawrence Baum as “…A court makes significant changes in public policy, especially in policies that the other branches have established. The most prominent form of activism involves the use of judicial review, the power to…

U.S. Supreme Court Institutional Legitimacy It is rumored that in reaction to a ruling from the Supreme Court in 1832, President Andrew Jackson stated, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!” This quote highlights a problem with the Supreme Court in which it can neither create nor enforce legislation. Because it has ”no influence over either the sword or the purse,” the Court must rely on its institutional legitimacy to ensure its rulings are respected (Hamilton 1788).…

leveling charges of judicial activism to the courts, blaming that judges are exceeding their limits in rendering their decisions. Furthermore they accuse that the decisions made by the courts specifically referring to the Charter are inconsistent and unreasonable. The Supreme Court of Canada decisions on women’s liberty, abortion, minority rights, rights for accused of crime, rights of same sex marriage had challenged the parliamentary supremacy. Critics allege that judicial review is…