Marbury v Madison (1803), was the first instance of increase of power, when Chief Justice John Marshall first implemented judicial review, a doctrine where the judicial branch examines the constitutionality of actions taken by the legislative and executive branches. With the passage of the 14th Amendment, judicial power was again substantially augmented with the implementation of three key clauses: the Privileges and Immunities, Due Process,and the Equal Protection clauses. Since the passage of the 14th Amendment, the Court has used these in its decisions to greatly affect the country, from Brown v Board of Education (1954), to Roe v Wade (1973), to this very summer, with Obergefell v Hodges (2015). These landmark cases demonstrate sweeping
…show more content…
Baker sued the state of Tennessee for ignoring an apportionment law passed in 1901. He argued that because Tennessee had not reapportioned in decades, and as the demographics of the state had significantly changed economically and in population, by the 1960s rural citizens were vastly overrepresented over urban citizens and thus his 14th Amendment rights were violated under the Equal Protection clause. In a 6-2 majority, a divided court delivered 3 concurrences to the majority opinion and 2 dissents, ruling that Baker was correct in filing the suit. The outcome of the case helped rectify severe misrepresentation and malapportionment all over the country, but more importantly set precedent for the judicial system to hear such a case. In previous cases such as Colegrove v Green (1946), the majority ruled that the judiciary had no power to interfere with apportionment, as the issue was seen as purely political.3 For the next twenty years, the courts dismissed apportionment cases due to their lack of justiciability as decided upon in Colegrove v Green. Baker v Carr not only overturned the issue of non justiciability but also created a six prong test to determine if a case is a political question. A political question, such as the case of the regulation of elections in Colegrove v Green was a question that was left to the other branches of government, as it dealt with purely political processes and was ineligible to be discussed in
Baker sued the state of Tennessee for ignoring an apportionment law passed in 1901. He argued that because Tennessee had not reapportioned in decades, and as the demographics of the state had significantly changed economically and in population, by the 1960s rural citizens were vastly overrepresented over urban citizens and thus his 14th Amendment rights were violated under the Equal Protection clause. In a 6-2 majority, a divided court delivered 3 concurrences to the majority opinion and 2 dissents, ruling that Baker was correct in filing the suit. The outcome of the case helped rectify severe misrepresentation and malapportionment all over the country, but more importantly set precedent for the judicial system to hear such a case. In previous cases such as Colegrove v Green (1946), the majority ruled that the judiciary had no power to interfere with apportionment, as the issue was seen as purely political.3 For the next twenty years, the courts dismissed apportionment cases due to their lack of justiciability as decided upon in Colegrove v Green. Baker v Carr not only overturned the issue of non justiciability but also created a six prong test to determine if a case is a political question. A political question, such as the case of the regulation of elections in Colegrove v Green was a question that was left to the other branches of government, as it dealt with purely political processes and was ineligible to be discussed in