Although a plethora of critics mention that the judicial branch is considered the weakest out of the three branches, none of the branches are truly weak. The judicial branch still plays a prevalent role in checking and balancing the other two branches. The purpose of judicial review is mainly to imply judicial supremacy in interpreting different various types of laws. In Federalist 78 by Alexander Hamilton, he decreed that judicial courts must “respect the right of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power (Woll 359).” Judicial courts must have complete independence of the courts of justice and be able to deem Congressional laws as unconstitutional. Nevertheless, Hamilton still mentioned that despite all of the power the judicial branch wields, he saw it as the least dangerous compared to the other two branches. Hamilton practically saw the judicial branch as merely an interpreter of laws with no real influence over anything that might be a threat to the country. The judicial branch receives its authority from the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution stated in Article III Section I that “The judicial power of the United States shall be vested …show more content…
Madison (1803). It established that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, and that no law may be able to contradict with the Constitution. Furthermore, it deemed the congressional law in question unconstitutional. The overall significance of the case would be that a “legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law, all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and it is the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is (Woll
There was discussion of judicial review in Federalist No. 78, written by Alexander Hamilton, which explained that the federal courts would have the power of judicial review. Hamilton stated that under the Constitution, the federal judiciary would have the power to declare laws unconstitutional. He also stated that this was appropriate because it would protect the people against abuse of power by Congress.
59. Marbury v. Madison is the most important case in Supreme Court history, was the first U.S. Supreme Court case to apply the principle of "judicial review" the power of federal courts to void acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution. The facts surrounding Marbury were complicated. In the election of 1800, the newly organized Democratic - Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson defeated the Federalist party of John Adams, creating an atmosphere of political panic for the lame duck Federalists. 60.
The Federalist Papers 78 and 79: The Judiciary Branch After the Revolution, America was in a very bad place. We had recently overthrown what many believed to be a tyranny. While many people argued our government needed more power, they were afraid of giving too much power. Keeping the Articles of Confederation or planning an entire new government was debated. Congress decided we needed a change.
How Significant are the decisions from the Marshall Court in American History? Marbury V. Madison- It was significant because it was the first Supreme court case that used the principle of judicial review. It was also significant because this case was the first case that played a key role in making the supreme court a separate branch of the government.
A lesson that would be stated repeatedly throughout his verdicts but never truly understood by citizens until the Civil War is that the states are subservient to the federal government, or that state law trumps federal law. For example in McCulloch vs. Maryland, where Maryland wanted to tax the building of a new national bank, where Maryland lost the case, as federal legislature supersedes state legislature. In this case, the legislation for a new bank trumped taxation of it. Furthermore, a more specific case of this issue is in the earlier case of Fletcher v. Peck, where Marshall declared the state law revoking the corrupt sale of land by bribed politicians was unconstitutional as the sale was good at the time of the land being sold, thus it is unconstitutional to revoke the sale of what was already sold. As true with both, it is shown that state government is weaker than federal government to ensure that a strong nation is run as one, rather than being pulled from each end by state governments.
Madison says, “...the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as they may check on the other… (The three branches) should not be so far separated as to have no constitutional control over each other” This means that Madison thinks that the branch should be able to ensure that each branch is fulfilling their responsibilities For example, The president can veto congressional legislation, the president nominates judges. The court can declare presidential acts unconstitutional and can declare laws unconstitutional. Congress can override the president's veto, the Senate confirms the president's nominations, and Congress can impeach judges and the president can remove him/her/them from office. This way there is not one branch with too much power over the
The Constitution is frequently thought to be the preeminent law of the United States that all laws made after it ought to maintain. Hamilton expressed that "the Constitution should be the standard of development for the laws, and that wherever there is an obvious restriction, the laws should offer place to the Constitution" (Document E). In any case, there have been times in United States history where a law has been passed that collides with the Constitution. On the off chance that the Constitution truly is the preeminent law of the United States, than any unlawful law that is passed ought to be toppled. In the event that the Supreme Court did not have the force of legal audit, than the privileges of the Constitution would gradually be taken away by new laws that contention with the Constitution.
"How Democratic is the American Constitution ?", by political scientist Robert A. Dahl is a short book that questions the ethical and political issues in America 's Constitution and the structure of the United States government. The book consists of a series of abstract lectures composed by Dahl that reflects on how the American Constitution affects modern society. While this short book brings out plentiful knowledge on the American system , it does not go any deeper into those general ideas for it is only about 200 pages. However, it is still a knowledgeable book to introduce the fundamentals of American government and political science and why American citizens should uphold the Constitution. Dahl introduces the book of how the Founding
Hamilton refers to the executive branch being the “…sword of the community” and the legislative “…commands the purse”. I agree with his argument where he feels as though the judiciary needed more independence compared to the other branches. Hamilton expresses that “…duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to manifest tenor of the Constitution void” where the branch should be strong enough to turn down laws passed by the Congress. Also, the act of “permanency in office”, which happens in today’s society. Alexander Hamilton says, “…all judges who may be appointed by the U.S are to hold their offices DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR” so the tenure of federal judges would be somewhat protected referring to judges withholding their place instead of being temporary.
The argument/famous Supreme Court case Madison vs. Marbury asked us the question should the Judicial Branch be able to declare laws unconstitutional. I think the Judicial Branch should be able to declare a law unconstitutional. I believe this because the judicial branch is very small, they have no other checks on any other branch, and they don’t receive any money. The Judicial Branch is so small.
Madison is best known as the landmark case in which the U.S. Supreme Court established judicial review. As a result of this case, the federal judiciary was strengthened, thus empowering federal courts to declare legislation, as well as executive and administrative actions, unconstitutional. The court consisted of six men, chief justice John Marshall, justice Alfred Moore, justice William Cushing, justice Bushrod Washington, and justice Samuel Chase. Furthermore, chief justice John Marshall remarkably won the war at the end of the case by establishing the supreme court as the final arbiter of the meaning of the constitution. “Marshall declared for the first time an act of Congress signed into law by the president as unconstitutional.
I disagree with Alexander Hamilton 's statement that the "Judiciary is the weakest branch of government” today. It might be the case because the judiciary branch is hardly in the media. Both the president and congress always making noise. They are always on the news, the president is trying to do something and complaining that congress is holding him back, for example “Obama Care”, and congress is all talk and no action especially, for issues that matter to the normal people for example, healthcare and taxes issues. On the other hand, judiciary branch is quite and hardly in the news and that’s what Hamilton probably meant by the “weakest branch” (The Judiciary, 2017).
In Federalist Paper Number 70, Alexander Hamilton wrote an article titled The Executive Department Further Considered. In this paper Hamilton using the pseudonym Publius, makes the case for a single-person executive chief for the future federal government. Hamilton writes that the President must have qualities as an “Executive which are the most necessary ingredients…vigor and expedition. ”
Madison court case that took place in 1803. The law that was declared by the Supreme Court at this hearing was that a court has the power to declare an act of Congress void if it goes against the Constitution. This case took place because President John Adams had appointed William Marbury as justice of the peace in the District of Columbia, and the new president, Thomas Jefferson, did not agree with this decision. William Marbury was not appointed by the normal regulation, which was that the Secretary of State, James Madison, needed to make a notice of the appointment. James Madison did not follow through and make a notice of Marbury’s appointment; therefore, he sued James Madison, which was where the Supreme Court came in place.
As Thomas Jefferson said “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.” Any of the branches of government can limit the power of the other two branches. Therefore, no branch of the government could put the freedom of the people in danger. During the articles of confederation, the central government was extremely weak. The United States needed a more powerful central government in order to effectively deal with any challenges that come in their