0
banana
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
In 1803 the judicial branch was not as strong as the legislative and executive branch what event of that year caused it to increase?
This 1803 decision marked the first time the United States Supreme Court declared a federal law unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion for the court. He held that it was the duty of the judicial branch to determine what the law is. His opinion established the power of judicial review-that is, the court's authority to declare laws unconstitutional.
Who was appointed to supreme court by Jackson he wrote the Dred Scott decision?
maria
Who was the judge in the tinker case?
The Tinker, or Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, was a Supreme Court decision. Justice Abe Fortas wrote the majority opinion.
What is the debate between judicial restraint and judicial activism?
Judicial Restraint vs. Judicial ActivismThe role of the judiciary branch has been up for debate for centuries. This is mostly due to no specific mention of the judiciary's exact task in the Constitution, except the checks and balances and separation of powers left behind by the Founding Fathers.Another factor in the debate is how the Constitution is interpreted. The method of interpretation is highly subjective and leads to further arguments on the role and power of the judicial branch.One last factor is the personal ideology of the judges. Personal views can affect a judge's judgment significantly to the point of questioning the judge's basis for decision-making.There are six main methods of interpreting the Constitution. One is textualism, or similarly, strict constructionalism. This means solely the text is referred to.For example: "Congress shall make no law… abridging freedom of speech" means exactly "no law." However, it has the drawback that not exactly everything is stated in the Constitution.Another similar method of interpretation is contextualism, which is attempting to derive the meaning from the text. Its main drawback, however, is subjectivity. "Freedom of speech" can be interpreted in over a hundred different ways. Is treason protected? Is flag-burning protected? Public school prayer? These kinds of arguments have all been hot topics of debate.Two other methods are originalism and structuralism. Originalism attempts to discover the original intent of the framers while structuralism attempts to refer to the structure of government (checks and balances, separation of powers, etc.). However, both methods are highly subjective. It is difficult to determine the framers' original intent when they purposely left the Constitution vague and ambiguous. It is difficult to base decisions on structuralism without hard concrete proof like textualism and contextualism.Two final methods are doctrinalism and developmentalism. Doctrinalism is the basing of decisions on previous case precedents or stare decisis. This is a standard approach of the judicial system.For example Plessy v. Ferguson held against many challenges until 1954's Brown v. Board of Education decision. Developmentalism is the add-on to doctrinalism in the sense that historical events and political culture are included for interpretation. However, both methods are negative in the sense that they both detract attention from the Constitution.There have been literally hundreds of landmark cases, but only a handful that have been brought up in the judicial restraint-activism debate. Judges have been noticeably making use of contextualism until the progressivist era.For example: Plessy v. Ferguson was passed on the basis that the Constitution did not mention or intend that blacks have the same citizenship rights as whites and that segregation was unconstitutional. The ruling was not overturned until Brown v. Board of Education, which has been touted because critics say that the judges "overstepped their bounds" or became too activist in their ruling.There are many cases where critics have argued that the judges and jurors were too activist in their decision, and possibly too self-centered on their personal views. Some examples include Roe v. Wade concerning abortion. The Supreme court ruled that abortion must be legal to protect the woman's health and privacy. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the government or anyone else to intervene in another person's personal affairs. In the Court's opinion, nobody could tell a woman that she could or could not have a child.Another debated ruling includes Lawrence v. Texas where the court ruled that consensual homosexual sex was legal and protected by the Constitution on the basis of personal liberty. Lochner v. New York was a debated case before the progressivist era.The Supreme court once ruled that minimum wage laws were unconstitutional because they infringe on one's right to negotiate business contracts.Other highly debated cases include Mapp v. Ohio dealing with search warrants and unwarranted evidence, Roper v. Simmons dealing with the death sentence and minors (under 18), and Miranda v. Arizona dealing with the accused knowing their (Miranda) rights and what they are accused of.Other things to consider are the judges' ideology. Conservative judges are likely to be more conservative in their decisions, such as Justice Felix Frankfurter. They will be more inclined to view the Constitution as a definite document, practice judicial restraint, be pro-life, and against the separation of church and state, viewing morality as an important factor.Liberals, on the other hand, such as chief justice Earl Warren, view the Constitution as a living document that is dynamic. Liberal judges are generally activist in their decisions, pro-choice, and a proponent of the separation of church and state.Moderates, obviously, would be a mix of both.However, that is not to say that judges should be confined to rigid categories. Conservative judges have sometimes practiced judicial activism and liberal judges sometimes practice judicial restraint.The role and power of the judicial branch has long been debated. Are judges supposed to practice judicial restraint, merely interpreting the Constitution or are judges supposed to practice judicial activism, proposing new laws and precedents, which may or may not be based on the Constitution?Additionally, how exactly is the Constitution supposed to be interpreted? One thing that is certain is that judges should not lie on the ends of the spectrum. Too much judicial restraint could lead to more decisions such as Plessy v. Ferguson and Dredd Scott v. Sandford, denying African Americans equal rights, whereas too much judicial activism could lead to more decisions such as Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas, adding rights and lessening restrictions but striking down conservative views.
Which term describes the balance between the branches of the government?
The balance of power between the three branches of government is even, since the founding fathers wrote checks and balances into the Constitution. The congress makes the laws, which can be vetoed by the president. The congress can over rule the president, and the judicial system can rule the laws unconstitutional.
Was the principle of judicial review established by James Madison?
No. Most people credit the decision in the case Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1803) with establishing the principle of judicial review. James Madison was the respondent (like a defendant) in that case; Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion.
Who wrote the decision giving the supreme the right to review and declare laws unconstitutional?
Fourth Chief Justice John Marshal wrote the opinion of Marbury v. Madison, (1803), the case most often cited as affirming the US Supreme Court's right of judicial review. Marbury was not the first time the Court used judicial review to evaluate legislation; however, it is the first time an Act of Congress was declared unconstitutional, and the opinion that best explicates this power of the judiciary.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Who wrote the decision giving the Supreme Court the right to review and declare laws unconstitutional.?
Fourth Chief Justice John Marshal wrote the opinion of Marbury v. Madison, (1803), the case most often cited as affirming the US Supreme Court's right of judicial review. Marbury was not the first time the Court used judicial review to evaluate legislation; however, it is the first time an Act of Congress was declared unconstitutional, and the opinion that best explicates this power of the judiciary.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Was judicial review associated with the Supreme Court and John Marshall?
Yes. Chief Justice John Marshall is directly associated with the Supreme Court's use of judicial review due to the opinion he wrote for Marbury v. Madison, (1803).
In 1803 the judicial branch was not as strong as the legislative and executive branch what event of that year caused it to increase?
This 1803 decision marked the first time the United States Supreme Court declared a federal law unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion for the court. He held that it was the duty of the judicial branch to determine what the law is. His opinion established the power of judicial review-that is, the court's authority to declare laws unconstitutional.
Who wrote did the principle of judicial?
Katniss Everdeen the girl on fire
Who wrote did the principle of judicial reviews?
Katniss Everdeen the girl on fire
When the colonists wrote the mayflower compact and promised to obey it were they establishing a separate government from England?
Yes they were.
Who wrote the poem 'door to decision'?
robert graves
Where can you find a quote by one of our Founding Fathers referring to the danger of our country being ruled by the judicial system?
Jefferson was against the idea of judicial review...search "jefferson, judicial review," something might come up. I think Alexander Hamilton or James Madison wrote about the dangers of judicial power in the Federalist papers too, you might want to check that out. Actually, Hamilton, writing in the Federalist Papers expressed confidance that the Judicial Branch would be the weakest because it has neither the power of the sword nor the power of the purse. However, he did warn that liberty would be threatened if either of the powerful branches united with the Judicial. See Federalist Paper # 78. The later has not happened, but in some ways, because of the lack of committment to their oaths to uphold the Constitution, and willingness to let the Judicial Branch take all the heat for doing so, it seems as if the Judicial Branch has become the strongest. The truth is, however, that the people still have the power to make those weak members do their jobs. The threat to fire is a powerful, if under-used tool in our hands (Prof. Jeffrey.)
Which one of Andy clemmensen's mates wrote the false review?
Sonny flagoin
What was the case that established the supreme court power to declare a federal law unconstitutional?
The decision in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803) is often credited with establishing the US Supreme Court's right to declare laws unconstitutional. This is called the doctrine of "judicial review," which is the power of courts to evaluate laws relevant to a case under review and declare them unconstitutional. If the Court finds a law unconstitutional, it is nullified and can't be enforced.Further Information:Most people believe the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madisonwas the first instance of judicial review, but this is not true. This case was the first that determined an act of Congress (Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789) was unconstitutional, and set a precedent that increased the power of the Judicial branch. Judicial review is actually an old English common law doctrine that US courts put into practice early in the nation's history.The first recorded instance of the Supreme Court exercising judicial review occurred in the 1796 case of Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796). In this case, the court determined a carriage tax did not violate Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution because it was not a direct tax on the population.Because the Court overturned the lower court decision and affirmed the constitutionality of the the carriage tax, Hylton v. United States is not typically cited as an example of judicial review.The confusion arises from the doctrine of "judicial review" being closely associated with a ruling declaring a law unconstitutional.
