Contemporary Examples of the Judicial Review System, Essay Example

This essay is based on the judicial review system and also explores the topic in light of the scholarly journals and sources. The essay will provide famous contemporary examples of the judicial system. In order to show examples, it is better to first understand what a ‘Judicial Review system’ is. Judicial power is the one that is possessed by all the courts and it is the power through which the contracts are interpreted. There are less courts relatively which have the judicial review power.[1] It is the review of Judiciary system which make the Supreme Court of the United States and make it essential in the system of Federal Law. This system separates the powers and ‘fleshes them out’. The civil liberties system that we are aware of today would be different in the absence of a judicial review. Judicial review is the Supreme Court of United States power which compare the acts of State Governments, Executive Branches and Congress Acts and merges them with the constitution of the United States. This means that if this is in effect then the Congress act of the law of state can overrun if the court thinks that this act has a chance of constitution violation. By the term, ‘overrun’ it means that the Congress persons can reject to enforce the court’s act.[2]

There are many contemporary and famous examples of the review of judiciary system. One is the Free Speech and the Flag Burning example. In this we can see that the Congress act overturned the court that would create an act of protest which burns the flag and make it illegal. This act was compared by the Court with that of the Constitution of the First Amendment which limits Congress from shortening the speech freedom. This act was in conflicts with that of the Amendment so the Judicial review system took into place. Another famous example is the Exclusionary rule and the Miranda Rule. In this instance, the procedures of the Court were compared for the suspect’s questioning by the local police and state. The admittance of proof and the rules into the courts states revealed that some of the procedures and rules were violated in relation to the various constitutions provisions. There was a ruling by the Court for the suspects which must read their rights before they are to be questioned. This proof illegally stopped and must be removed from the court use.[3] The third contemporary example is that of the ‘Watergate Scandal’. In this there was a ruling by the Court that the President of the US Nixon had certain prices that needs to turn over as proof to the courts when they were reviewing the scandal of Watergate. It is completely possible that this scandal would not had been revealed and Nixon would have to be resigned forcefully if the Court Supreme had not done the ruling.

The questions arises where does this system of review of judiciary comes from. It is clearly shown in the Constitution that this system has an influence which is powerful on the Government of America’s function. Article three of this court jurisdiction show a great deal in these kinds of cases. In the power of Judiciary the power of all the cases needs to be extended to the Equity and Law as under this constitution arises the US laws. Treaties shall be or will be made in accordance with the authority of the judicial system. It doesn’t comprises of the Congress acts and power to overrun. The answer is that the judicial review system has the power over time almost and everyone came into an agreement later in time.[4]

Another contemporary example is the case of Federalist 78 which Hamilton Alexander wrote. He wrote this in order to convince the New York people to ratify the constitution which is new and to clear the Judicial Review argument and make it in favor. Hamilton is not trying to show that there is power within the court but he assume that the court does. He is trying to convince the people that it is a good idea to have power in one authority. This lends support to the Founders of the Conventional Constitution and this idea assumed that the Court have absolute power. He is not trying to prove that there is power exercised in the court but he wants people to assume that the court has power. Another instance is that of the Congress binding on the Constitution of the US. There is no place which relies on clarified principles and that every authority which is delegated needs to be in contrary to the commission tenor under which it is implemented or else it is deemed void. There is no act of legislation which this constitution contraries to and has to be valid. In order to reject this, would be to affirm to this and the principal of the deputy is greater and the servant is above the master etc. The people representation shows that they are superior by virtue of powers and powers doesn’t authorize but what it forbids.[5]

The people’s power is gotten from Congress which expressed these powers as well as limits these powers in the constitution of written form. Therefore, Congress forbidding power by any authority relies with that of the Judicial review system. If there is a law passed by Congress, this law interfere with the speech which is free or exercises religious rights, this act of legislation is not enforceable or valid in court. It is the courts business to interpret these laws and review the judiciary. The laws interpretation is a peculiar and proper for courts. In fact a constitution must be regard as a law which is fundamental by the judges.[6] It is therefore ascertains and belongs to them as a meaning which comprises of act preceding any specific legislative body. If there comes a variance which is irreconcilable between the two parties, this validity of the obligation must be reviewed. If it is superior in obligation that it is preferred and the Constitution ought to prefer to that statute. The constitution needs to be interpreted whenever there are two laws that comes in conflict with each other. When this happened there must be two authoritative parties to review this. This way the judicial system comes into beings which tackles the issue. The Supreme Law is the Constitution and must always be uphold when there is a Congress act of conflict or between the Government States.[7]

Madison vs. Marbury is another contemporary example of the review of judicial system. It is a complicated case and was made harder when there was a language which was antiquated in which it was done. This general argument seems around but the judicial basis remains in the present review. In this argument, the translation Marshall is the reason of the Federalist 78 by Hamilton into the opinion of judicial system. Marshal Justice John was the first Chief Justice which was great and was from the court. His first inquiries were repugnant to the constitution and later he became the law of the land. In other wordings, the law passing by Congress violates the constitution and it is really a law which is enforceable. The answer is no. All the government powers are derived from the individuals.[8] There are [powers which are limited to the form of written constitution. Any government act that exceed not just authority but also limit is enforceable by law. It is clear that the Court must uphold the constitutional law and enforce it. This is because we all are used to it. If Congress thinks that the burning of flag is not under the constitutions protection and the Court Supreme thinks it is protected then why there has to be decision with the court. This is where the judicial system comes into place. The Law of the Land Supreme says this in Article VI. The province is emphatically under the judicial department duty and this is what the law is. Marshal in this statement shared that judicial power is what the court tends to do.

If both the Constitution and the Congress applies a case particularly before the court, then the Constitution must be applied to Congress as well. The judicial review survived because of John Marshal Justice in this decision accounted in the case of Marbury. Where the court of the US was weak.[9] The branch judiciary was dominated with that of the Federalists. Whereas the Congress and the Presidency were held by the Republicans Democrats and as a results of that the real power branches became hostile with the court. This decision was not enforceable by Marshall. So, the ultimately prevailed in his viewpoint. The reason is that he had two motives which strengthened his idea of the judicial review over the past two decades. One is Constitutionalism and the other is Democracy distrust.[10]

It is the American’s that like to believe that there exists no one that is above law. So the review of the judicial system encourages the President and the Congress to remain within their boundary limits and reassures that the government of America doesn’t exceed the limits of constitution and there has to be some remedy. Other motive is the Democracy distrust. This review of Judicial system has survived that unchecked the majority of powers. Majority of the time, the state legislatures and Congress do a lot of things what the state majorities and nationals would want them to do.[11] The courts in considerable degree from the opinion of the public insulated this and can resist the power popularity. Sometimes the Court is able to cease the government from doing what most of the people would do. Secondly, the court can also force the government to do what the majority does.

The review of the judicial system gives power to the court to review the policies, treaties, laws and orders of executives to the cases before the court and overturn or nullify them which is found to be out of constitution. It is a crucial part of the system of balances and checks on the government in the US.[12] The Court Supreme has the power to review the Congress, Executive and Presidential acts and ensure that they don’t become too powerful to abrogate the rights of constitution or that of citizens. The historical examples in this review of judiciary is that the Curt supreme evaluated that the federal law is in constitution with that of Supreme Court. In the case of Hilton vs, Ware, the Court of Ellsworth determined that that Paris Treaty to took precedence over to the state law constitution which was nullified by law. There are many cases that has come before the Court Supreme which is involved in the review of judiciary. This is due to the justices mostly asked to figure out whether the application of law or law violated a specific person or group’s rights of constitution.[13]

To conclude, some contemporary examples of the review of judiciary are Roe vs, Wade in 1973. The court also exercises the review of judiciary when it uphold or evaluates a specific law. As this was done in the case of US vs, Dupire in 2011. In this case the defendant challenged the sentencing of federal law and appeared to penalize the distributors and manufacturers of substances of cocaine based.[14] In Roe vs. Wade case, the Texas law prohibited abortion. In the case of Board of Education Vs, Brown in 1954, the state laws were overturned permitting socially public schools segregation. In the case of Texas vs. Lawrence in 2003, the court overturned anti sodomy law for Texas as the invasions of privacy which was unconstitutional.

Bibliography

Corwin, Edward S. The Doctrine of Judicial Review: its legal and historical basis and other essays. Vol. 1. Transaction Publishers, 2014.

Henderson Jr, James A. “A Process Perspective on Judicial Review: The Rights of Party-Litigants to Meaningful Participation.” Michigan State Law Review 2014, no. 4 (2015): 979.

Howard Jr, J. Woodford. Courts of appeals in the federal judicial system: A study of the second, fifth, and District of Columbia circuits. Princeton University Press, 2014.

[1] Howard Jr, J. Woodford. Courts of appeals in the federal judicial system: A study of the second, fifth, and District of Columbia circuits. Princeton University Press, 2014.

[2] Corwin, Edward S. The Doctrine of Judicial Review: its legal and historical basis and other essays. Vol. 1. Transaction Publishers, 2014.

[3] Howard Jr, J. Woodford. Courts of appeals in the federal judicial system: A study of the second, fifth, and District of Columbia circuits. Princeton University Press, 2014.

[4] Corwin, Edward S. The Doctrine of Judicial Review: its legal and historical basis and other essays. Vol. 1. Transaction Publishers, 2014.

[5] Howard Jr, J. Woodford. Courts of appeals in the federal judicial system: A study of the second, fifth, and District of Columbia circuits. Princeton University Press, 2014.

[6] Corwin, Edward S. The Doctrine of Judicial Review: its legal and historical basis and other essays. Vol. 1. Transaction Publishers, 2014.

[7] Howard Jr, J. Woodford. Courts of appeals in the federal judicial system: A study of the second, fifth, and District of Columbia circuits. Princeton University Press, 2014.

[8] Corwin, Edward S. The Doctrine of Judicial Review: its legal and historical basis and other essays. Vol. 1. Transaction Publishers, 2014.

[9] Howard Jr, J. Woodford. Courts of appeals in the federal judicial system: A study of the second, fifth, and District of Columbia circuits. Princeton University Press, 2014.

[10] Corwin, Edward S. The Doctrine of Judicial Review: its legal and historical basis and other essays. Vol. 1. Transaction Publishers, 2014.

[11] Corwin, Edward S. The Doctrine of Judicial Review: its legal and historical basis and other essays. Vol. 1. Transaction Publishers, 2014.

[12] Corwin, Edward S. The Doctrine of Judicial Review: its legal and historical basis and other essays. Vol. 1. Transaction Publishers, 2014.

[13] Henderson Jr, James A. “A Process Perspective on Judicial Review: The Rights of Party-Litigants to Meaningful Participation.” Michigan State Law Review 2014, no. 4 (2015): 979.

[14] Howard Jr, J. Woodford. Courts of appeals in the federal judicial system: A study of the second, fifth, and District of Columbia circuits. Princeton University Press, 2014.