The Court had the right to review acts of Congress and the actions of the President. If a law was found unconstitutional, the court could overrule it. Marshall wrote, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” He argued the constitution is the Supreme law of the land and it has the final say over the meaning of the…
Which basically means that each branch of government should be allowed aloud to check on each other to make sure that they aren’t doing anything unconstitutional. In Document C it states “... 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.” They check on each other by using their equal power by approving or disapproving something that the other branch has worked on. For example the judicial branch can impeach the president (from the executive branch) if acts in unconstitutional conduct, but the president can nominate the judicial branch members. If one branch overpowers the rest than that is considered tyranny.…
Federalism guards against tyranny in many ways. ”In the Compound republic of america, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments.” This…
A hot debate relevant for today is the question of how the constitution is to be interpreted. When writing the constitution, the founding fathers were clearly living in an ern which entailed concerns that are different from concerns today. During the constitutional convention, men discussed debated until they agree on what should become the framework for our great nation. Because of this the constitution appears to be ambiguous on many particular issues which we face today. Are we then to address those issues in light of the context in which the constitution was written, or are we to view it as a living document that’s meaning changes with time?…
The institution of the Supreme Court is anti-democratic. They are the final decision makers and there is no check to their power. Yet their role in making changes to the constitution comes from some sort of injustice that makes us question how the text has been interpreted. A citizen must take legal action and go through an arduous process to reach the high court. This process is intentionally difficult so only matters that are truly perceived of as immoral and consist of enough social implications, will be heard.…
The text also explains, “The Court can declare laws unconstitutional... The President can veto Congressional legislation... The President nominates judges…” (As contained in the Constitution of the United States of America, 1787. Document D).…
First, the Supreme Court needs to be able to decided whether laws are constitutional or not, because we need a part of the government to do that specific job. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution states that the “Constitution, … , shall be the supreme law of the land” (Doc. G), and it is the basis that our government and country were based upon. No law should able to violate the Constitution therefore we need someone to decide what is constitutional and what isn’t. No legislative act or law can go against the Constitution, and if it does it is not a legitimate law (Doc. C).…
As analyzed in Dynamic Constitution, the reality of the Supreme Court is that it simply finds the law and applies it, without the justices allowing their own views to come into play (Fallon). “The 1st amendment’s equal protection…
The United States Constitution can be considered a very controversial topic in regards to our government. The Constitution is used to divide power between the federal government and the states. It is used also to protect the individual liberties of the American citizens. In the article The Ratification Referendum by Sanford Levinson, he discusses how the U.S constitution is flawed in many ways. He argues that Americans should have the opportunity to vote on whether congress should draft a new constitution .…
The reasoning behind this is for the general government to be more united and well…
The Supreme Court, as Justice Madison puts it, is the Supreme interpreter of the law, and all laws that are not constitutional must be strike down. Brandeis also thinks this way. He thinks the interpreter of the law has supervisory powers. They must be impartial and not allow a citizen or government official to break the law. If citizens break the law, then the appropriate punishment applies according to the statutes; however, if the government breaks the law, then sanctions applies to uphold the integrity of the law.…
The Constitution: Fixed or Flexible 1.The Death Penalty: Is It Constitutional? How should judges interpret vaguely worded phrases in the Constitution? The act of interpreting vaguely worded phrases in the Constitution should be frequently revised over time, according to Thomas Jefferson, in order to meet the demands of the nation, and to satisfy the public opinion at that certain time.…
The Judiciary Can’t Have Too Much Power The Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution, changed a portion of Article III, Section II of the U.S. Constitution. Even before ratification of the Constitution anti-federalists worried that Article III, Section II would interfere with the sovereignty of the individual states. The original Article stated that: the judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made under their authority; to cases between a State and Citizens of another State and between a State or the Citizens of it and foreign States. The anti-federalist believed this would allow the federal government to override the States right to not be subject to a suit without the States consent.…
Term limits proposed would break the justices into three classes which are replaced every 4 to 5 years if an opening does not come before then. The second half states that the congress or the state legislators can repeal and decision the Supreme Court makes without presidential threats of a veto if done within twenty four months of the decision. The framers gave congress the power to define the size or courts and the make-up of the federal courts. They expected the courts to be the least dangerous government branch, which it was until the decision in the Marbury v. Madison case, under the decision citing Claus of Article VI: “The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into?…
Pewresearch.com took a survey on Republicans, Democrats, and Independents on whether the U.S. Supreme Court should base rulings as they are meant today or as they were originally written. Most Republicans said that the U.S. Supreme Court should base rulings as they were originally written (69% to 29%). On the other hand, Democrats (70% to 26%) and Independents (48% to 47%) said that the court rulings today should be based on what the U.S. Constitution means in current times. In total 49% of the people that were surveyed, said that the Supreme Court should base rulings on today’s meaning of it. 46% of people surveyed said that they should rule court cases by how the U.S. Constitution was originally written.…