Should The Supreme Court Have The Power Of The Executive Branch Essay

Improved Essays
If the Supreme Court didn't have the power to overturn unconstitutional federal laws, then who would? Without the supreme court, the other two branches will be overpowering. The United States can’t have a workable system of the government without the judicial branch. The Judicial branch act as a tiebreaker for the legislative branch and executive branch. And those three are the reason to prevent the government from overpower. Without them, it will lead to chaos, and nobody makes a decision. The states end up with power and create their own country. The Supreme Court should have the power of judicial review and overturn the unconstitutional federal law because it reviews the actions of the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch to see if …show more content…
According to Hamilton (1788) stated that the judiciary the “least dangerous” branch of government. Unlike the other two branches, the supreme court has the only power to make a decision. Document B “ The Executive not only dispenses the honors but hold the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse but prescribes the rules by which the duties of every citizen are to be regulated.” this quote shows that each of the branches already has their duties. The legislative branch has the power to control tax and money, while the executive branch can make law and control the army. It would be overpowered if they would give them the power to overturn the unconstitutional federal law. It’s unfair to give the legislature judicial review. Each branch should have their power. No other branches act will go against the constitution is acceptable. The legislative branch often writes laws that will rob citizens of their constitutional rights. The supreme court is the referee, able to call foul if one of that law is unconstitutional. Every branch should have equal power and no other branches above

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    This means that Parliament should not pass legislation that would result in the unequal treatment of particular groups or individuals. If Parliament does pass any such laws, the judiciary has the power to declare them unlawful if the law is taken to judicial review, as it almost certainly would be if the law were genuinely violating the rule of…

    • 1144 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Checks and Balances is a system used by the U.S government to limit the power of each branch so that every branch is equal in power and no branch has too much power. This Checks and Balances system is important to our government because if not, one branch would take over the others and there would be no control or equality with the power our government has and is given by the people. The colonists past experiences with British rule led to the fear of creating a strong central government. Because of this fear the Articles of Confederation seemed like an amazing constitution for the U.S. It established a weak national (federal) government and strong state governments.…

    • 1142 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    While the anti federalists only focus on what they do not like about the current government. The anti federalists fail to realize that the legislature of the federal government cooperate together from different branches that they created themselves. Each branch of the federal government check the other to make sure only the most important and efficient laws actually pass. The judicial branch checks and makes sure that laws are interpreted the way they are supposed to. This branch does not work to cooperate with the other branches to take over the United States and gain complete control of everyone inside the country.…

    • 856 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Still, Lee would point out that abridging means the exercise of prior restraint. The government can’t stop someone from publishing a malicious article, but the person can be punished after. However, to combat Lee’s argument Madison states that certain powers -enumerated powers- are given to the government, which is what they have total control over. There is no enumerated power in the Constitution for Congress to claim that they can control the press, therefore they shouldn’t be able to punish people even if it is after the article had already been published. In fact, the First Amendment added an express denial of any such power.…

    • 798 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This is an important when human rights are being considered because with issues of national security can often lead to improper treatment of minorities and foreign nationals. The judiciary is best not to defer to Parliament on matters of national security as Lucia Zedner explains that with “judicial protestations of deference to ‘ministerial responsibility’, in practice it is the executive that makes most controversial decisions regarding security. Whatever deference judges owe ministers can hardly be said to extend to civil servants .” Since neither the judges nor civil servants are elected to office, judges…

    • 1936 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The judicial branch serves the purpose of representing the legal foundation of the entire nation-not just the ideals of an elite few. As James Madison states, if men were angels no government would be necessary, and the judicial branch would not need to remain an independent branch of the government. However, it is the corruption behind the election process that would not only rid the judiciary division of its independency, but it would leave the system subject to the biased decisions of the public which would hinder the end result of…

    • 758 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The courts must declare the sense of the law, which means they play a major role in a law being passed (F78). The Antifederalist argue the judges of the Supreme Court are a vital part in the judiciary branch controlling the legislative branch and if need be, the Supreme Court could resort to determining what the extent of the powers of Congress are (AF 78). Next to permanency in office, otherwise known as tenure nothing could contribute more to the independence of the judges than their support…

    • 1059 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Unfair, cruel ruling and no freedom, how would you like to have a government that follows these set of rules? This is what it would be like to have tyranny in the United States government. This is what it would be like without the creation of the constitution.The first guard against tyranny was federalism, which is federal, state and local government. Another protection against tyranny was separation of powers which made three main branches of government, judicial ,executive and legislative. One of the last guards against it is checks and balances which makes sure the different branches are using their power correctly and if they’re not then the others can check them for it.…

    • 458 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Individualism In Society

    • 1082 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Thus, they developed a system of "checks and balances" to prevent any one of the three separate branches of the government from becoming dominant. The checks and balances included in the Constitution ensure that the government will never become too centralized. Thus, it is obvious that the very foundation upon which this nation was constructed, the Constitution, blocks any of the three branches from dominating the other two. And while it is true that government has become more centralized than the framers of the Constitution had probably planned, it is still far from the monarchy of England. The Separation of Powers devised by the framers of the Constitution was designed to do one primary thing: to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist.…

    • 1082 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The final reason was that the Supreme Court declared the law of Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional because it granted too much power to the court above the Constitution. The final decision of the case showed that Jefferson’s secretary, James Madison had no right to prevent William Marbury from taking his office as a justice of peace. But on the other hand the Supreme Court has no power to force Jefferson and his secretary to let Marbury take his position because they would ignore what the court says. The law upon which Marbury’s claim was based on was declared by Chief Justice John Marshall unconstitutional . So after all that happened William Marbury could not become a justice of peace of the district…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays