The Supreme Court has been a part of America, and was made to keep both the executive and legislative branch in check. In order to completely understand this question, it is important to understand politics in general. Politics is defined as “the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.” The two most powerful things in America are the executive and legislative branch. These consist of the Congress, President, and Vice President. Supreme Court officials, which are a part of the judicial branch, are appointed by the President himself, and serve life long terms. The only people who can get rid of a Supreme Court Justice,
…show more content…
One such decision was the court case of Marbury vs. Madison.William Marbury was designated as a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. When he didn’t get this position, he decided to sue James Madison, who was the Secretary of State. The designation was made legal by Section 13 of the Judiciary act of 1789. The Supreme Court had to determine if Marbury was entitled to his appointment, if a lawsuit was the correct way to get the position and, if the Supreme Court was the place for Marbury to get the relief he requests? The Supreme Court decided that he was ,in fact, entitled to this appointment. The issue that arose, was that Section 13, of the Judiciary Act, conflicted with Article III section 2 of the Constitution. See, the Constitution is the supreme law of the United States; thus, when the Constitution conflicts with legislation, that legislation becomes void. This case established the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review. This case gave the Supreme Court the power to keep Congress in check, and kept them from becoming too powerful. The concept of judicial review is still used today, and is something that the founders of the Constitution wanted the Supreme Court to have. The original authors of the constitution wanted the Supreme Court to have a hand in politics, and gave them the …show more content…
A subpoena was issued for a collection of tapes Nixon had recorded in the oval office. Nixon, refused to turn over these tapes and claimed “Executive privilege”, which may be claimed by the President and other high ranking officials of the executive branch. Historically, presidents have claimed the right of executive privilege when they have information they want to keep confidential, either because it would jeopardize national security or because disclosure would be contrary to the interests of the Executive Branch (Executive Privilege). Basically the Supreme Court had to decide if the President’s right to withhold information, via executive privilege, was immune from judicial review. The court said no, but admitted that there is a limited executive privilege in areas of military or diplomatic affairs. In this case, they simply pursued "The fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice." (“United States v. Nixon”) This forced Nixon to obey the subpoena and release the tapes, and files, resigning shortly after. This case is important, because the Supreme Court denied the President’s ability to use executive privilege. The power of the judicial branch, took away the presidential ability to dismiss a subpoena, and his ability to withhold
One such decision was the court case of Marbury vs. Madison.William Marbury was designated as a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. When he didn’t get this position, he decided to sue James Madison, who was the Secretary of State. The designation was made legal by Section 13 of the Judiciary act of 1789. The Supreme Court had to determine if Marbury was entitled to his appointment, if a lawsuit was the correct way to get the position and, if the Supreme Court was the place for Marbury to get the relief he requests? The Supreme Court decided that he was ,in fact, entitled to this appointment. The issue that arose, was that Section 13, of the Judiciary Act, conflicted with Article III section 2 of the Constitution. See, the Constitution is the supreme law of the United States; thus, when the Constitution conflicts with legislation, that legislation becomes void. This case established the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review. This case gave the Supreme Court the power to keep Congress in check, and kept them from becoming too powerful. The concept of judicial review is still used today, and is something that the founders of the Constitution wanted the Supreme Court to have. The original authors of the constitution wanted the Supreme Court to have a hand in politics, and gave them the …show more content…
A subpoena was issued for a collection of tapes Nixon had recorded in the oval office. Nixon, refused to turn over these tapes and claimed “Executive privilege”, which may be claimed by the President and other high ranking officials of the executive branch. Historically, presidents have claimed the right of executive privilege when they have information they want to keep confidential, either because it would jeopardize national security or because disclosure would be contrary to the interests of the Executive Branch (Executive Privilege). Basically the Supreme Court had to decide if the President’s right to withhold information, via executive privilege, was immune from judicial review. The court said no, but admitted that there is a limited executive privilege in areas of military or diplomatic affairs. In this case, they simply pursued "The fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice." (“United States v. Nixon”) This forced Nixon to obey the subpoena and release the tapes, and files, resigning shortly after. This case is important, because the Supreme Court denied the President’s ability to use executive privilege. The power of the judicial branch, took away the presidential ability to dismiss a subpoena, and his ability to withhold