The founding fathers of the Constitution did not want the government to have too much power in any one agency, so they divided the government into the executive, legislative and judicial branch to avoid tyranny. The Supreme Court is the authority of the judicial branch and the highest of all courts, which can examine the laws and decisions made by Congress and declares them unconstitutional. This does not mean that the Supreme Court has unlimited power because each branch partakes in checks and balance in providing a government of the people. The role of the Supreme Court is to not only to ensure the people equal justice under the Constitution but to also provide as checks and balance within the government. Since the Constitution is complex,
…show more content…
While judicial review is not noted in the Constitution, Madison had intended the U.S. Constitution to be evaluated by independent judges instead of through conflicting political bargaining. [3] Of course, the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review was not implemented until 1803 in connection with the case Marbury v. Madison. In Marbury v. Madison, John Marshall, the Chief Justice, pointed out that it was necessary for the Supreme Court to have the power to overturn unconstitutional legislation. [4] Ever since, the Supreme Court has used this power to review the laws to make sure they are constitutional. The judicial review process gives the Court the responsibility to ensure individual rights and maintain the Constitution as new issues arise in a complicated and changing society. …show more content…
[8] Of course, this seem to fit the judicial review process by providing the Court the ability to ensure individual rights and maintain the living constitution as new issues arise in changing society. On the other hand, the living constitutional ideal adds that interpreting the meaning of the Constitution under old views is outdated and needs to evolve without being formally amended. [9] The founding fathers were aware of the need for change to fit the needs of society, but to make those changes it must be formally amended and not left up to the judiciary branch to make that decision. This is apparent under U. S. Const. art. V, which provides the option to propose an amendment if two-thirds of the House find it necessary or through the national convention and requested by two-thirds if the state legislature.
While judicial review is not noted in the Constitution, Madison had intended the U.S. Constitution to be evaluated by independent judges instead of through conflicting political bargaining. [3] Of course, the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review was not implemented until 1803 in connection with the case Marbury v. Madison. In Marbury v. Madison, John Marshall, the Chief Justice, pointed out that it was necessary for the Supreme Court to have the power to overturn unconstitutional legislation. [4] Ever since, the Supreme Court has used this power to review the laws to make sure they are constitutional. The judicial review process gives the Court the responsibility to ensure individual rights and maintain the Constitution as new issues arise in a complicated and changing society. …show more content…
[8] Of course, this seem to fit the judicial review process by providing the Court the ability to ensure individual rights and maintain the living constitution as new issues arise in changing society. On the other hand, the living constitutional ideal adds that interpreting the meaning of the Constitution under old views is outdated and needs to evolve without being formally amended. [9] The founding fathers were aware of the need for change to fit the needs of society, but to make those changes it must be formally amended and not left up to the judiciary branch to make that decision. This is apparent under U. S. Const. art. V, which provides the option to propose an amendment if two-thirds of the House find it necessary or through the national convention and requested by two-thirds if the state legislature.