...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 legislative...
Words: 3569 - Pages: 15
...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 to...
Words: 1369 - Pages: 6
...Supreme Court justices are just politicians in black robes Supreme court justices are politicians. They are politicians alongside their duties of judges of the highest court in the land. The most basic definition of a politician is, a person that achieves a position of policy making over an organized community. Judges, in theory, should be fair, unbiased, neutral, impartial and not based or linked to any political party or movement. However, decisions made by the Supreme Court judges have had huge political significance. While it’s not the standard in lower courts, the United States Supreme Court is forced to make political and judicial decisions. A judicial decision is based on the question was a law broken. However, because the Supreme Court is the highest court of the land, they also must make political decisions some of which have been more powerful that the actual laws congress had written. The Supreme Court is in charge of making sure congress and the president don’t overstep their authority, and to do this job of keeping these branches accountable it would be impossible for the justices to not be politicians yielding real power. One of the examples of the supreme courts political power the court case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). Estelle Griswold was the executive director of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut; she and Dr. Buxton of Yale Medical School opened a clinic in Waterbury and after only serving 10 patients Griswold and Buxton were arrested and convicted...
Words: 2189 - Pages: 9
...Marbury v. Madison On February 24, 1803 Chief Justice John Marshall and the rest of the Supreme Court decided on the seemingly insignificant case of Marbury v. Madison. While ruling the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, Judicial Review was established. Granting the Supreme Court the power to rule acts of the Legislative and/or Executive Branch of government unconstitutional, hence serving as a landmark case that further legitimatized the Judicial Branch as a separate, but balanced branch of government. Marbury v. Madison has been used as a very important precedent throughout our history with 165 acts of Congress deemed unconstitutional as of 2010. In the Presidential election of 1800, the Democratic-Republic party of Thomas Jefferson defeated the Federalist party of John Adams. With the loss of the election, the Federalist Party began to diminish. Although losing the presidency, John Adams and his party was still in control for a couple months. In an attempt to maintain the Federalist Parties presence, John Adams appointed a number of Judges. All of these appointees were properly commissioned, but John Adams Secretary of State failed to deliver three commissions. With one of these commissions being a man by the name of William Marbury. Thomas Jefferson began his Presidency on March 5, 1801. After learning of these Federalists appointed by John Adams, Thomas Jefferson ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison not to deliver the remaining commissions. With William...
Words: 985 - Pages: 4
...A supreme court is the highest court within the hierarchy of many legal jurisdictions. Other descriptions for such courts include court of last resort, instance court, judgment court, apex court, and highest court of appeal. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts. However, not all highest courts are named as such. Civil law states do not tend to have singular highest courts. Additionally, the highest court in some jurisdictions is not named the "Supreme Court", for example, the High Court of Australia; this is because decisions by the High Court could formerly be appealed to the Privy Council. In a few places, the court named the "Supreme Court" is not in fact the highest court; examples include the New York Supreme Court, which is superseded by the New York Court of Appeals, and the former Supreme Court of Judicature of England and Wales. Some countries have multiple "supreme courts" whose respective jurisdictions have different geographical extents, or which are restricted to particular areas of law. In particular, countries with a federal system of government typically have both a federal supreme court, and supreme courts for each member state, with the former having jurisdiction over the latter only to the extent that the federal constitution extends...
Words: 4621 - Pages: 19
...Evaluate the claim that the U.S Supreme Court is an Imperial Judiciary The Founding Fathers established the Federal Supreme Court in Article III of the Constitution as the ultimate judicial power, claiming “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court”. Despite being put into power in 1789, The debate still exists as to how powerful the Supreme Court truly is, some say it is an imperial power with too much influence over U.S Politics, whilst others argue against this claim stating the Supreme Court is imperilled in many respects. The two main claims that the Supreme Court is still powerful lies in their power of Judicial Review and the fact they have a security of tenure, meaning they cannot be fired and are not subject to elections like other government officials, meaning they can act as they wish and with great freedom. Justices are not completely free to exercise power as they wish, they are of course bound by the constitution (subject to interpretation) and have a responsibility to interpret it correctly. Furthermore, they can be subject to impeachment by the Senate if they act in a manner not fitting that of the highest lawmakers in the land. The United States government is made up of 3 supposedly co-equal branches of Government, a system of checks and balances designed to make the perfect democratic system. However, with the surge of partisanship on the hill coupled with a progressive Executive branch addressing some of Americas most...
Words: 1830 - Pages: 8
...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...
Words: 495 - Pages: 2
...or provides services, accommodations (including housing accommodations), advantages, facilities, goods or privileges based on sincerely held beliefs.” Assuming that the state legislature passed this Amendment to the state Constitution, it is necessary to determine whether or not it would survive a legal challenge to its constitutionality in the Supreme Court. After analyzing cases of precedent in the area of racial discrimination as well as the Commerce Clause in the United States Constitution, it is evident that Rep. Denlinger’s Amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution would be struck down and ruled unconstitutional. Before exploring the justifications behind ruling Rep. Denlinger’s Amendment unconstitutional, it is imperative to see how and why the Supreme Court can make a judgment on the constitutionality of laws, as well as why the challenging of this law specifically takes place in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s power to determine the constitutionality of a law came from the landmark ruling in the 1801 ruling in Marbury v. Madison. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall determined that the Supreme Court had this power, along with being the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution...
Words: 986 - Pages: 4
...was and how our entire Supreme Court and country's politics would be different if he had not made the decision. John Marshall's decision to declare that the Supreme Court could not give out writs of mandamus and thus the Judiciary Act of 1789 (that gave out this power) was unconstitutional set the precedent for the Supreme Court to have the power to declare a law unconstitutional with the principle of judicial review. With this decision, he gave the Judiciary Branch as much power as the other two branches, and also stressed the power of the national government over the states. Without this decision, the states could be the final authority in determining if laws are unconstitutional and federalism would have been minimized. The states would not respect the decisions of the federal government. In this case, William Marbury, a Federalist and a “midnight appointment” of President John Adams, did not receive his commission from the new Secretary of State under Thomas Jefferson, James Madison. Marbury asked the Supreme Court to issue a “writ of mandamus” forcing Madison to deliver his commission. Marshall dismissed suit, but in doing so struck down part of Judiciary Act of 1789 because the Supreme Court had no authority to give Marbury his commission. This was significant because it established the precedent of “judicial review” and that the Supreme Court, not states, had power to declare laws of Congress unconstitutional. Before this case, the Supreme Court had been the weakest...
Words: 530 - Pages: 3
...organization. There has to be an understanding of law by learning it, common knowledge, upbringing, and from society as a whole understanding the consequences of its actions. State and Federal courts have very different structures. According to "United States Courts" (2014), " The state court system use the Constitution and laws of each state to establish the state court with the Supreme Court being the highest court, state courts have courts that handle specific matters, if a decision is made and the parties are dissatisfied they may take their case to the Court of Appeals, parties have the option to ask the highest state court to hear the case, only certain cases are eligible for review by U.S. Supreme Court. The Federal Court System invest the judicial power of the United States in the federal court meaning it specifically creates the U.S. Supreme Court and gives Congress the authority to create the lower federal courts. Congress has used this power to establish the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals, the 94 U.S. District Courts, the U.S. Court of Claims, and the U.S. Court of International Trade. U.S. Bankruptcy Courts handle bankruptcy cases. Magistrate Judges handle some District Court matters. Parties dissatisfied with a decision of a U.S. District Court, the U.S. Court of Claims, and/or the U.S. Court of International Trade may appeal to a U.S....
Words: 758 - Pages: 4
...American politics during their reign of power through dominating government powers, using their beliefs to strengthen the central government,...
Words: 833 - Pages: 4
...weeks after John Adams lost his bid for re-election to Thomas Jefferson in 1800, the Federalist Congress increased the number of circuit courts. Adams placed Federalist judges in these new positions. One of the justices of the peace, William Marbury, filed a writ of mandamus demanding Secretary of State James Madison deliver the appointments. The Supreme Court led by John Marshall denied the request citing part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 as unconstitutional. This historic court case established the concept of Judicial Review or the ability of the Judiciary Branch to declare a law unconstitutional. This case brought the Judicial Branch of the government on a more even power basis with the Legislative and Executive Branches. The historic court case Marbury versus Madison accomplished this end thereby setting the precedent for numerous historic decisions in the future (Marbury verses Madison, 1803). On his last day in office, President John Adams named forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Columbia under the Organic Act. The Organic Act was an attempt by the Federalists to take control of the federal judiciary before Thomas Jefferson took office. The commissions were signed by President Adams and sealed by acting Secretary of State John Marshall (who later became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and author of this opinion), but they were not delivered before the expiration of Adams’s term as president. Thomas Jefferson refused...
Words: 3750 - Pages: 15
...Articles I and III of the United States Constitution defined the powers of both Congress and the Supreme Court.In addition, Marshall’s court cases further supported their significant roles, which impacted many cases greatly. In “Marbury v. Madison,” Seeing that John Marshall, who was a federalist, could not side with Marbury, who was also a federalists, because it was not written in the constitution that he could. It would be illegal. He did what was constitutional and ruled in favor of Madison. The creation of a sovereign legislature implies an authority to pass laws to execute its given powers. This clause is nothing more than a declaration of the authority of Congress to make laws, to execute the powers expressly granted to it, and the other...
Words: 972 - Pages: 4
...United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled in United States v. Peters that the power of the Federal Government is greater than the power of any individual state. In the case United States v. Peters, a Connecticut privateer named Gideon Olmstead was captured by the British Navy during the Revolutionary War and forced to work on the Active. However, Olmstead and his shipmates overcame the British crew, but then they were captured by the Convention, an armed brig that belonged to the state of Pennsylvania, and the Le Gerard. The captains of the ships claimed any profit from the sale of the captured ship and its cargo as their own. This was a problem for Olmstead and his shipmates...
Words: 640 - Pages: 3
...appointment, only passing a series of hiring processes. In order to become a civil servant, an applicant must complete an application for employment. After an application is made, an applicant must submit to a federal background check. Applicants are then chosen for civil service positions based on their experience and the status of their background check. Once an individual is part of the federal bureaucracy, promotions are based on merit. Merit based promotions replaced the spoils system for promoting employees after the Pendleton Act was passed in 1883. It gave employees the opportunity to be judged based on performance rather than social standing. The president, the congress, and the court constrain and balance the bureaucracy through bureaucratic reform. In order to balance power within the federal bureaucracy and make the federal bureaucracy responsive to the needs of United States citizens,...
Words: 932 - Pages: 4
