Two Significant Inconsistencies In Dr. Scott's Lecture On The Judiciary

On a lesser note, Cray also examines the dichotomy between Warren’s republican background and his role in the development of progressive legislation as Chief Justice. In these controversial cases, Warren asked himself ‘what is right’ before he asked ‘what is the legal precedent.’ Cray craftily points out Warren’s seemingly paradoxical characteristics and views and explains them with great

Thesis: “that judges, if they act rationally, must weigh all the alternatives” [see page 641]. Discussion- analysis of strategies and tactics. Assumptions made by the author; (1) historical role of a free society, has been deeply embedded in the American judiciary, (2) the

The articles written by Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer both contribute valid insight on how the Constitution should be interpreted. They, however, end up taking conflicting views on whether to adopt what is known as a living constitution or to bind the judiciary by the original meaning of the document. Throughout their works, the authors mention the importance of objectivity, judicial restraint and the historical context in which the Constitution was written under and whether or not it should apply to the United States today. Scalia argues in favor of the originalist approach, stating that he supports neither a strict nor a loose interpretation of the Constitution, but rather, a reasonable interpretation. Breyer sides with the cosequentialist ideals, claiming that active participation in collective power is paramount when it comes to evaluating the Constitution's place in American law.

Rehnquist argues that Marshall saw the constitution, not only as a document, but as a “charter” that represented the will of the people (O’Brien 166). However, the argument made by Rehnquist reinforces Marshall’s interpretation of judicial review as the will of the majority. By comparison, Judge William Justice takes a different approach from Rehnquist on the interpretation of Judicial review. Judge Justice argues that Hamilton’s intention was for the court to be a “bulwark” against “Majoritarian excesses,” (O’Brien 181) so as to protect against the tyranny of the majority. Likewise, Hamilton saw the same principle of the court as a “bulwark” against congress.

This was the power of federal courts to cancel out the acts of Congress that was in conflict with the Constitution. The decision was written out by Chief Justice John Marshall. This decision played a main role in creating the Supreme Court as a separate branch of government with the executive and Congress. Marbury was not the only one who was supposed to receive a commission. Before, President John Adams had named 42 justices of the peace.

Edwin Meese III held quite a different view as compared to that of William Brennan. Meese held the opinion of strictly following exactly what is stated in the Constitution of the United States, otherwise known as fidelity. In his essay he focuses on fidelity often. Edwin Meese portrays his belief in his essay as he quoted Justice Joseph Story, “The First and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties.” (Meese).

When one holds a prestigious position on the United States Supreme Court, they possess the opportunity to alternate the future of the country. However, that impulse should not be entertained in the majority of instances, as with the Dred Scott Case of 1857. Although that conflict should have dissolved after the subject dissolved, Chief Justice Roger Taney allegedly overextended his reach to determine the legality of another issue that had troubled the United States. In addition, the decision decided on the case itself negates the framework of the U.S. Constitution by infringing on an individual’s rights, regardless of who they might be. At the time of the Dred Scott Decision, the United States had become deadlocked over the controversy

Marshal argument was that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was intertwined with the court other two branch and was unconstitutional. This established the Judicial Review, Jefferson and Marshall couldn’t argue with the rules (page

In fact, Marshall was part of the state convention that ratified the constitution in 1788. The lawyer at the time also played a significant role in changing the Articles of Confederation with the new Constitution. Additionally, the

Travis Maguire JCC US History Marshall Court Project Essay November 6, 2017 Chief John Marshall of the United States Supreme Court had a large impact on American history. His influence on the United States established the great power that the Supreme Court held for the future.

John Marshall was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who supported loose construction of the Constitution and enforcing economic provisions in the Constitution. The Supreme Court decisions did not extend federal power too much because the states needed to stay the same. Marshall’s leadership skills helped strengthen the federal government and he believed in all things good for the government. It is not appropriate that someone who was not elected should have such tremendous power to shape the government and law because the president and people should have the ability to elect a person to have a government position. John Marshall was a powerful government official who made the government strong, but he should not have had so much power

As time has progressed, the United States has continuously changed to meet the needs of its people. With each passing day, the country has slowly shifted away from what it had been initially as created by our forefathers. One reason for this transformation has been the nation’s judicial branch which has influenced the course of social and reform movements, as well as our ideologies and beliefs. The court rulings under Earl Warren are evidence that the judicial branch is a powerful force that can be a catalyst for change.

John Marshall altered the Court’s position within the constitutional system and engaged a dynamic battle to sustain the federal authority over the interstate business and in dealings between the states and the federal government. This he did during the thirty-four years he was the chief justice and to date is a legacy in the Court’s history. Marbury v. Madison (1803) marked the commencing of Marshall’s record of achievement in which he justified the Court’s supremacy of judicial review - the rule to assess the constitutionality of state laws and other actions of the government - and put down the foundations of national constitutional jurisprudence. In Fletcher v. Peck (1810), Marshall alleged that a land grant was a contract that a government

To begin the trials, Robert H. Jackson, the U.S. chief of counsel, opened with a speech. In this speech, he stated…

Justice Thurgood Marshall Response Justice Thurgood Marshall said in his “Reflections on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution”, “I do not believe the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental as today” (Marshall). In this passage of his essay, Judge Marshall is critical of the government that is