The Supreme Court is a powerful and fundamental branch in the current United States government. The unelected justices of the Court are able to strike down legislation that is interpreted as unconstitutional. The Court is able to act as a policy maker and in turn acting as a branch of the legislative body in doing so. Another aspect of the current day Supreme Court is that the justices are able to interpret and make precedents on the “spirit” of the constitution to keep up with the present day social climate. The Supreme Courts use of Judicial Review as established in the case Marbury V Madison, has transformed a United States ruled by Judicial Supremacy. Proponents of Article three of the constitution as it was ratified, had believed that
…show more content…
The independence of the branch would allow it to grow in power without any check by the other two branches. Brutus No. 15 even draws a terrifying distinction between the courts of Britain and the proposed Supreme Court. “The judges in England, it is true, hold their offices during their good behaviour, but then their determinations are subject to correction by the house of lords; and their power is by no means so extensive as that of the proposed supreme court of the union”1. The settlers had wanted to stay far away from the tyrannical type of government they had just fled. This point by Brutus should have caused more discussion since it showed clearly that the proposed justice system lacked more of a balance than the British parliamentary system. The response by Hamilton in Federalist #78, written just two months later, defended the independence of the court. Hamilton argued that the courts isolation would actually inhibit it from attaining any harmful power. Hamilton argued that without the power of the “sword or purse”, it could not hold weight against the other branches. The courts only true power came from protecting the constitution, so it inherently could never be a poison to the thing in which it
The independence of the branch would allow it to grow in power without any check by the other two branches. Brutus No. 15 even draws a terrifying distinction between the courts of Britain and the proposed Supreme Court. “The judges in England, it is true, hold their offices during their good behaviour, but then their determinations are subject to correction by the house of lords; and their power is by no means so extensive as that of the proposed supreme court of the union”1. The settlers had wanted to stay far away from the tyrannical type of government they had just fled. This point by Brutus should have caused more discussion since it showed clearly that the proposed justice system lacked more of a balance than the British parliamentary system. The response by Hamilton in Federalist #78, written just two months later, defended the independence of the court. Hamilton argued that the courts isolation would actually inhibit it from attaining any harmful power. Hamilton argued that without the power of the “sword or purse”, it could not hold weight against the other branches. The courts only true power came from protecting the constitution, so it inherently could never be a poison to the thing in which it