Should the Supreme Court's Power of Judicial Review Be Strictly Limited by a Constitutional Amendment

In: Philosophy and Psychology

Submitted By MzPam2U
Words 495
Pages 2
The Supreme Court and Judicial Review
Should the Supreme Court's power of judicial review be strictly limited by a constitutional amendment?
Yes, the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review should be strictly limited to the constitution; because their judicial power is in all cases, in law and equity, arising under the constitution. Meaning they are over stepping their initial jurisdiction and have been given the power to have judicial reviews, even though it’s unconstitutional.
The only power the Supreme Court is supposed to have is; all cases affecting ambassadors, or the public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party in the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction as stated in article III section 2 of the constitution. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the weakest of the three branches of government. The legislative, and executive branches are supposed to control the judiciary branch, even the states are supposed to have more say than the court. But they have been made more powerful and they are telling the legislative and executive branches what to do. There is no such system of checks and balances any more that protect the states and people when most government branches, are acting in cohorts with one another, eroding and destroying the rights and powers of the states and we the people. Even if the system was working right; who is watching and how will they stop the court from being unconstitutional? Every time the court holds judicial review it commits unconstitutional law, for which there is no recourse’s available. Because the nine justices are appointed, not elected in to office and can only be removed from office for bad behavior. Even though it has happened in the past; today’s day and age it less likely that any one of them will be removed, it’s more like a lifetime appointment (Michelsen, 2010).
I believe that if the…...

Similar Documents

Supreme Court Rise to Power

...Each branch was meant to keep the other in check and make sure that they did not abuse their powers. The branches of government were as follow the lawmaking, executive and the jurisdictive. The constitution started out has simple two page document because the founding fathers couldn’t agree on much of anything. When the framers first thought of the Supreme Court they were thinking of a branch of government that would have supreme power. This is evident by the way each branch is laid out in the establishment. Each branch of government has its power expounded to them in detail. When it came to the court the description of power became vague. Some scholars believe that the founding fathers didn’t give the Supreme Court as many restrictions because they wanted a court of judge that would rule and intrepid the constitution as they would. The constitution was never meant to govern the people of America it was meant to rule and control them. The founding fathers picked people for the court that had the same backgrounds as them. According to the how the constitution is worded the framers gave the court the right to make law based on thing un for seen by them. This means that they have the right to make laws on thing that are being invented and used by Americans today The responsibilities and limitations of each branch of government are set forth in the constitution. For example specific powers are granted to the congress concerning their jurisdiction and job details. For the......

Words: 3569 - Pages: 15

Judicial Review

...Judicial Review: proposals for reform December 2012 Consultation Paper CP25/2012 Consultation start date: 13 December 2012 Consultation close date: 24 January 2013 Judicial Review: proposals for reform Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty December 2012 Cm 8515 £16.00 © Crown copyright 2012 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to Michael Odulaja, Administrative Justice, Court and Tribunal Fees and Coroner’s Policy Team, Ministry of Justice, Post Point 4.34, 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ. This publication is available for download at www.official-documents.gov.uk and on our website at www.justice.gov.uk ISBN: 9780101851527 Printed in the UK by The Stationery Office Limited on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ID 2529331 12/12 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum. Judicial Review: proposals for reform Contents Foreword 1. Introduction 2. Background 3. The case for change 4. Time limits for bringing a......

Words: 11446 - Pages: 46

The Supreme Court and Judicial Review

...The Supreme Court and Judicial Review Should the Supreme Court's power of judicial review be strictly limited by a constitutional amendment? Yes, the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review should be strictly limited to the constitution; because their judicial power is in all cases, in law and equity, arising under the constitution. Meaning they are over stepping their initial jurisdiction and have been given the power to have judicial reviews, even though it’s unconstitutional. The only power the Supreme Court is supposed to have is; all cases affecting ambassadors, or the public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party in the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction as stated in article III section 2 of the constitution. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the weakest of the three branches of government. The legislative, and executive branches are supposed to control the judiciary branch, even the states are supposed to have more say than the court. But they have been made more powerful and they are telling the legislative and executive branches what to do. There is no such system of checks and balances any more that protect the states and people when most government branches, are acting in cohorts with one another, eroding and destroying the rights and powers of the states and we the people. Even if the system was working right; who is watching and how will they stop the court from being unconstitutional? Every time the court holds......

Words: 610 - Pages: 3

Can the Power of the Supreme Court Be Justified in a Democracy

...view that the power of the Supreme Court cannot be justified in a democracy. The Supreme Court: Functions of judiciaries; judicial independence. Membership, appointment process and issues of judicial review; accountability and democratic control. Theories of judicial activism and restraint. The supreme Court is the head of the judicial part of Government in the USA, it acts as an appellant court which can also on occasion deal with ambassadorial and diplomat cases. It is separate from the other 2 branches of government in order to remain independent and provides a powerful check on those branches. However it has been criticised by being called democratically lacking. The members have a significant amount of power however are unelected and unable to be dismissed. The most significant issue with the Supreme Court’s power is its (lack of) accountability, this is largely caused by the appointment process. The Supreme court has had significant influence over public legislation since the Marbury vs Madison case of 1803 and increasingly so since Chief Justice Warren’s court who made controversial decisions regarding segregation (Brown vs Topeka) and Abortion (Roe vs Wade). This has continued to more recent court cases such as the 2012 Windsor vs USA which recognised gay marriage striking down DOMA (the 1996 Defence of Marriage Act) which stated that only heterosexual marriage would be federally recognised. This has led to the appointment process of Supreme Justices......

Words: 1369 - Pages: 6

Judicial Review

...Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court to decide whether or not a law is constitutional. The Supreme Court has the power to say that a law that Congress passed violates the Constitution and is therefore invalid. But when should the Court do this? When should it overturn a law that has been passed by Congress which, unlike the Supreme Court, has been elected by the people? This is where judicial philosophy comes in. There are generally said to be four judicial philosophies that come in two pairs. First, there are the philosophies of loose constructionism and strict constructionism. Strict constructionism holds that the Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution very strictly. If the Constitution does not say (for example) that there is a right to privacy, then there is no such right. Loose constructionism says that the Court should go more by the general meaning of the Constitution, not by its exact words. Therefore, a loose constructionist would say that the Constitution implies that we have a right to privacy and therefore we do have that right. Second, there is judicial activism and judicial restraint. Judicial activists believe that judges should strike down laws relatively often. If the Court thinks the law is unconstitutional, it should not hesitate to strike it down. Those who believe in judicial restraint think the Court should not strike laws down very often. Instead, the Court should generally let Congress do what it wants because......

Words: 260 - Pages: 2

Judicial Review

...Judicial Review: The power enables the judicial branch to act as a check on the other two branches of government. Jurisdiction: The power to speak the law. In Rem Jurisdiction: Court can exercise jurisdiction over property that is located within its boundaries. Bankruptcy Court: Only handles bankruptcy proceedings. Probate Courts: State courts that handle only matters relating to the transfer of a person’s assets and obligations after that person’s death. Federal Courts: Federal government is a government of limited power, the jurisdiction is limited. Federal Courts have subject-matter jurisdiction in two ways: 1.) Federal questions: Plaintiff’s cause of action is based, at least in part, on the U.S. Constitution, a treaty, or a federal law. 2.) Diversity of Citizenship: Federal district courts can also exercise original jurisdiction over cases: A.) Plaintiff and Defendant must be residents of different states B.) Money amount must exceed $75,000. Concurrent Jurisdiction: Both Federal and State courts have the power to hear a case, as in suits involving diversity of citizenship. Exclusive Jurisdiction: One or the other only could tried the case. Venue: Concerned with the most appropriate location for a trial. Standing to Sue: Sufficient stake in a matter to justify seeking relief through the court system. Justiciable Controversy: A controversy that is real and substantial. The State Court System: 1.) Local......

Words: 740 - Pages: 3

Pol 201 Week 4 Dq 1 the Supreme Court and Judicial Review

...4 DQ 1 The Supreme Court and Judicial Review http://homeworkmonster.com/downloads/pol-201-week-4-dq-1-supreme-court-judicial-review/ POL 201 Week 4 DQ 1 The Supreme Court and Judicial Review The Supreme Court and Judicial Review. In a recent lecture at Yale University, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer cautioned that while most citizens assume that judicial review is an enduring part of American government, judges should not take it for granted. He advises that if judges wish to preserve this undemocratic power they should follow a judicial philosophy that will “build confidence in the courts” (Breyer, 2011). Justice Breyer goes on to describe the kind of judicial philosophy he has in mind. However, some of his colleagues on the Supreme Court would reject his ideas about what philosophy should guide judges. The role of judicial philosophy (or ideology) in Supreme Court decision-making, especially in its exercise of judicial review to invalidate laws enacted by a democratically elected Congress or state legislature, has become a highly contentious issue both within the Court’s deliberations and in the larger political environment. As the nation becomes more divided over programs and policies that inevitably seem to come before the Supreme Court, politicians and ordinary citizens are caught up in rhetoric about judicial activism or judicial restraint, often with little understanding of what these terms really mean. Moreover, as public perceptions of the Supreme Court......

Words: 251 - Pages: 2

Separation of Power

...SEPARATION OF POWER: A COMPARATIVE STUDY INTRODUCTION The research topic deals with the concept of „the separation of powers. The researcher would like to highlight the concept of separation of powers and then gradually comes to the point separation of powers in England and US. After that the researcher would like to articulate the separation of powers in India. The doctrine of “the separation of powers” as usually understood is derived from Montesquieu whose elaboration of it was based on a study of Locke’s writings and an imperfect understanding of the eighteen century English constitution. Montesquieu, a research scholar, conceived the principle of separation of power. He found that concentration of power in one person or group of persons resulted in tyranny. He therefore, felt that the governmental power should be vested in three organs, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The principle can be stated as follows: (1) Each organ should be independent of the other; (2) no one organ should perform functions that belong to the other. Lock and Montesquieu derived the contents of this doctrine from the developments in the British constitutional history of the early 18th century. In England after a long war between parliament and the King, they saw the triumph of Parliament in 1688 which gave Parliament legislative supremacy culminating in the passage of the Bill of Rights. This led ultimately to recognition by the King of legislative and tax powers of......

Words: 3396 - Pages: 14

Government: Constitutional Powers and Limits

...without granting it too much power. To ensure that, the framers both, limited and empowered the government in certain ar- eas. But since the original seven articles of the Constitution are over 200 years old, the framers could not foresee the expansion of the government’s power that has happened until the present day. With the “war on terror” being one of the governments priorities, questions arise if the gov- ernment has become too powerful, especially with regard to practicing surveillance. This essay aims to analyse the limits and powers given to the government by the framers in the seven Arti- cles of the Constitution, and finally apply these Articles to the government’s practice of sur- veillance today. The most essential points limiting the government’s power is the separation of power and the system of checks and balances. The federal government itself consists of three branches, the legislative, executive, and judicial branch; in other words, Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court. The power is divided between these three branches in order to keep any of them from becoming too powerful. Thus, the framers intended to prevent a corruption of power and tyranny over the states by imposing controls on each branch. The legislative branch, for in- stance, is kept in check by the President, who has the power to veto bills proposed by the for- mer, to call or adjourn a meeting of Congress, and to recommend bills. Additionally, the Supreme Court can strike laws down......

Words: 1221 - Pages: 5

Supreme Court and Judicial Review

...Kfkjmtgjtjhjyutg Supreme court and judicial review Supreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial reviewSupreme court and judicial......

Words: 287 - Pages: 2

Constitutional Amendment Opinion Paper

...The supreme law of the United States is the Constitution; it establishes the form of the national government and defines the rights and liberties of the American people. There are twenty-seven amendments in the Constitution, to me; the most significant Constitutional Amendment is the fourth Amendment. The fourth Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791.It reads, "Unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The fourth Amendments were added to protect people and limit the government from unreasonable searches and seizures. The police cannot search someone's body, house or other things without having a good reason; they cannot take away anything from anyone without a good reason. Remember last year, I've watched a movie at home, there was a fragment of the movie showed that a black couple got pulled aside of the street by two white police officers by their bias of blacks. And one police officer started to search their car and body without any permits. The black couple doesn't want to get in trouble, so they didn't report .Even though I have no experience in this kind of situation, but I feel so angry about this case. The police should not search any citizens for his personal reasons; this is the serious invasion of privacy. The fourth Amendment gives......

Words: 516 - Pages: 3

Power of Supreme Court

...The Power of the Supreme Court Cannot be Justified in a Democracy (45) The US Supreme Court has a number of powers. These include the power to declare acts of Congress, the executive or state legislatures unconstitutional through the power of judicial review. The supreme court justices are also given the power to interpret the constitution when making decisions, again, through their power of judicial review. It is arguable that it is essential for the supreme court to have such powers in order to allow the American democracy to flourish. However, there is much evidence to suggest that the supreme court holds too much power for an unelected body, thus hindering democracy. The ambiguity of the constitution means that there is much room for interpretation. Since interpreting the constitution is the role of the supreme court, the supreme court is often seen as a quasi legislative body. This is because through its interpretations, particularly those made by loose contructionists, the supreme court acts as an additional legislature. It's decisions can have the same effect as passing legislation. For example, the Grutter vs Bollinger decision (2008) involved the courts laying down a time frame for which affirmative action can be deemed necessary. This effectively acted as a piece of legislation even though it did not pass through Congress. This can be seen as being problematic and potentially damaging for a Democracy. Justices are unelected, they therefore lack legitimacy and......

Words: 913 - Pages: 4

Judicial Review

...Judicial Review The power of judicial review allows the judiciary to review the acts of other branches of government as well as the state. Judicial review is important because it admits the Judicial Branch to check the power of the Executive and Legislative Branches, making them to abide by the rules of the Constitution. The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Federal Judicial System as well as the Marbury V. Madison case, which formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States. The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the three levels of the federal court system. At the bottom of the system is the federal district court. The district court is a state of federal trial court. One could appeal their case to the circuit court if they were unhappy with the district courts verdict. The circuit court, or now known as the court of appeals, was first created to work as a trial court for important cases. After 1891, the circuit courts started to focus only on reviewing the findings of the lower courts. The last level of the federal court system is the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the United States. It consists of nine justices and it ranks over all of the other courts in the nation. In 1803, The Marbury v. Madison case declared the power of judicial review. This was the first time the Supreme Court overturned federal legislation. In return, The Marbury v. Madison case greatly strengthened the power of the......

Words: 375 - Pages: 2

The Supreme Court V. the 14th Amendment

...The Supreme Court V. The 14th Amendment I. Introduction A. The Supreme court presided over three cases in the span of ten years that grossly affected the country. B. The 1873 ruling of the Slaughter House Cases, the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, and the 1896 case of Plessy V. Ferguson. II. Body A. The 1873 ruling of the Slaughter House Cases. 1. A Louisiana law of 1869 created a state corporation for the slaughtering of livestock. The corporation was given exclusive power to slaughter livestock, and all other private slaughterhouses were required to close. Independent butchers could use the corporation’s facilities for a charge, but could not conduct independent operations. 2. The butchers not included in the monopoly claimed that the law deprived them of their right to "exercise their trade" and challenged it under the 13th and 14th amendments. The highest state court sustained the law. 3. The states have the proper police power to limit slaughter house operations for the health and safety of their residents. The meaning of the 13th and 14th amendments must be derived from the historical context of the problems they were designed to remedy, namely African slavery. The Congress, after the end of the Civil War, sought to strengthen the freedom of the former slaves by passing these amendments. 4. Specifically, they only were meant to guarantee federal privileges, not state privileges, whatever they may be. The "privileges and immunities" clause did......

Words: 706 - Pages: 3

Judicial Review

...Guardiola Constitutional Law Dr. Seana Sugrue Judicial Review: The Balancing Act of the Constitutional Conscience “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” Chief Justice John Marshall declared in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison. The content of this statement as the outcome of the 1803 case marked a significant component of our governmental structure, affecting virtually every aspect of American life. The power of judicial review recognized the United States Supreme Court as the Constitutional conscience of our nation, having ability to judge actions at both the state and federal levels. The dispute about the historical legitimacy of this judicial ability remains today, but the relevant question we treat today pertains to its proper practice. In these regards, our founders prescribed that “the Judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court” (US Constitution, Art. III. Sec. 2), and that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land" (Art IV, Sec.2). As we understand it, judicial review must serve to guide the actions affecting the lives of citizens by the standard of the United States Constitution. Judicial review must be exercised with knowledge and prudence, finding a balance between defense of individual rights and national security, judicial restraint and judicial activism, state interests and national incentives. The danger of the grand power of......

Words: 3353 - Pages: 14