Yes, the federal courts can declare legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional, but someone who has standing to challenge the law must file a suit first (the Supreme Court can't just pluck a bill off the President's desk and start critiquing it). In order to have standing, an individual must be personally, directly and negatively affected by the law in a significant way and there must be an issue that can be remediated by a court. Not all legislation lends itself well to judicial review.
The Supreme Court, which is the head of the Judicial Branch of government is empowered to decide on the constitutionality of laws. When a law is deemed unconstitutional, it is overturned.
Protect citizens from being tired under unconstitutional laws Apex
The president can cancel congress' law with a veto Congress can override a veto and pass into law anyway Supreme court can decide a law or president's action is unconstitutional congress can initiate amendments to the constitution to change it
The Supreme Court has the unwritten policy of judicial review. This means that they can check amendments and bills that the other two branches of the federal government suggest. If a law seems to be unconstitutional, and not written in the constitution, the Supreme Court can decide it is unconstitutional.
No. The President can express a personal opinion that a law is unconstitutional, but he (or she) lacks authority to make an official judgment. The Judicial Branch is responsible for determining the constitutionality of laws; the US Supreme Court is the highest authority on the subject.
Laws that were discriminatory were unconstitutional.
Judicial Review, which states that the Supreme Court can determine if any act of Congress or the president is unconstitutional. Aside from judicial review the most common actions of the US Supreme Court is to hear cases brought before it after a long tedious process that can begin at the state court level.
The Supreme Court can abrogate a law if they decide that the law is unconstitutional.
The Judicial Branch, also known as the Supreme Court, has the power to declare actions unconstitutional and interpret treaties when checking the president. When checking Congress, the judicial branch has power to decide laws unconstitutional.
You don't have that quite right. The President has the privilege of nominating persons to the Supreme Court. They must be approved by the Senate, however.
If the president and the vice president die or become incapacitated simultaneously or in any way that prevented the nomination of a new vice president, the speaker of the house is next in the line of succession. While this has never happened, and some believe it is unconstitutional to have a technically unelected president, the 20th amendment gives Congress the power to decide who is next in succession after the vice president, and the law they passed to decide it is the Presidential Succession Act of 1947.
The Supreme Court has limited powers over the states. The Courts can decide that the state law or action conflicts with a federal law. They would have to have a judicial review
the supreme court and cabinet appointees.
the supreme court did not end slavery. Congress did that with the 13th ammendment.
When a law is passed the Supreme Court can decide if it is constitutional.
Federal Courts can nullify Presidential directives if they are unconstitutional. Congress can remove a President if he fails to support the Constitution.
In 2006 the Supreme Court said the president could not unilaterally establish military commissions; while the president could request they be established, they needed an Act of Congress to be legitimized.
That states should and could decide when Congress was passing unconstitutional laws.
The US Supreme Court, theoretically, as part of the system of the federal government's system of checks and balances. However, they have no way to enforce their claim of unconstitutionality, as exploited by Andrew Jackson. The Supreme Court has the right to check Congress by deciding if the laws it passes are Constitutional. The People are the ultimate check on Congress, through the vote.
They decide if laws are unconstitutional or not, and they're the highest court in the USA.
This would essentially put the supreme court under the president and let him decide the constitutionality of laws if Congress agreed with him. However if the opposition controlled Congress, the president might fire the whole court and Congress might refuse to confirm his new appointments and chaos would result.
The president sends the name of a candidate for the Supreme Court to congress and they decide if he / she gets the job. With an ambassador he doesn't need approval to appoint someone to the post.
Congress does not select the president, the Electoral College actually elects him.
A system of checks and ballances, Congress creates laws President can Veto Supreme Court can decide if it is or is not constitutional