America stands for justice, nevertheless, equality but the Judicial Branch possess an amount power over Congress that overshadows this statement. The Judicial Branch consists of three levels; the District Courts, Court of Appeals and uppermost power, the Supreme Court. Despite the fact that the Senate and Executive branch have the choice of who maintains the position of Supreme Court Justices, the Supreme Court still has the ability to subdue the other branches. Revealed in the United States Constitution, Chief Justice John Marshall’s majority decision, in addition to a 2005 Political cartoon, it is evident that the Supreme Court subjugates the Executive and Legislative Branch.
First, in 1789, the United States ratified the U.S. Constitution, …show more content…
Most importantly; decide how to interpret the laws of the Constitution, all laws passed by Congress, orders by the Executive Branch and our nation’s rights, in addition to responsibilities in foreign policy. All of this power grants the one individual branch to oversee, moreover, be the “mother” to the children, the Legislative and Executive Branch. The Judicial Branch has the ability to control and regulate laws, foreign policy correspondingly, executive orders that are passed, causing them to “parent” or monitor what the other branches do. To make matters worse, stated in Article III, Section 1 the power of the judicial branch “shall be invested into one Supreme Court.” This means that all of the judicial power invests in the individual Supreme Court. The issue with this statement allows all mass power vested in the legislative branch to go to only the Supreme Court. In other words, nine individuals; the Justices and Chief Justice are able to control major acts by the other two branches. Even though these individuals may be introduced by the President and …show more content…
Madison Supreme Court case, Chief Justice John Marshall’s majority decision revolutionized the interpretation of Section 1 according, Section 2 of Article 3 in the US Constitution. Marshall first stated in his speech that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This reveals that Marshall believes the Supreme Court’s duty or job is to determine what the law is. He then says that “if two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each… if a law be in opposition to the Constitution...the court must either decide that case conformably to the law...or conformably to the Constitution… in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land.” Marshall interpreted Article III, Section 1 and 2 as giving the Supreme Court power to determine what laws are unconstitutional and if they should be ratified. He even expands beyond interpreting the laws, but also declaring what laws are of the highest ranking that control the nation. Most importantly, Marshall supports his argument by stating that “the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle.” This means that the wording of the Constitution even agrees and grants the Supreme Court to such overruling, and statements in contradiction are even unconstitutional. After Marshall delivered this speech, the United States government changed their thoughts of the Supreme Court as a
First, in 1789, the United States ratified the U.S. Constitution, …show more content…
Most importantly; decide how to interpret the laws of the Constitution, all laws passed by Congress, orders by the Executive Branch and our nation’s rights, in addition to responsibilities in foreign policy. All of this power grants the one individual branch to oversee, moreover, be the “mother” to the children, the Legislative and Executive Branch. The Judicial Branch has the ability to control and regulate laws, foreign policy correspondingly, executive orders that are passed, causing them to “parent” or monitor what the other branches do. To make matters worse, stated in Article III, Section 1 the power of the judicial branch “shall be invested into one Supreme Court.” This means that all of the judicial power invests in the individual Supreme Court. The issue with this statement allows all mass power vested in the legislative branch to go to only the Supreme Court. In other words, nine individuals; the Justices and Chief Justice are able to control major acts by the other two branches. Even though these individuals may be introduced by the President and …show more content…
Madison Supreme Court case, Chief Justice John Marshall’s majority decision revolutionized the interpretation of Section 1 according, Section 2 of Article 3 in the US Constitution. Marshall first stated in his speech that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This reveals that Marshall believes the Supreme Court’s duty or job is to determine what the law is. He then says that “if two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each… if a law be in opposition to the Constitution...the court must either decide that case conformably to the law...or conformably to the Constitution… in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land.” Marshall interpreted Article III, Section 1 and 2 as giving the Supreme Court power to determine what laws are unconstitutional and if they should be ratified. He even expands beyond interpreting the laws, but also declaring what laws are of the highest ranking that control the nation. Most importantly, Marshall supports his argument by stating that “the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle.” This means that the wording of the Constitution even agrees and grants the Supreme Court to such overruling, and statements in contradiction are even unconstitutional. After Marshall delivered this speech, the United States government changed their thoughts of the Supreme Court as a