Chief justice marshall established the courts as an

This preview shows page 4 - 6 out of 7 pages.

Justice Marshall established the courts as an interpreter of the constitution (though not the only one) which, established the court as an equal and independent branch of the government. Judicial review is the ability and authority that a court possesses to review a treaty, statute, or administrative regulation to establish its compliance with the constitution (Nelson 2000). In the United States, the power of judicial review is contingent on the history, provisions, and structure of the constitution. This power began when Chief justice Marshall made his landmark decision in Marbury V Madison. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts can and should review acts of congress and invalidate them if they are deemed as Marbury V. Madison 3
unconstitutional (Nelson 2000). The judicial review concept is now well established with courts quoting the Marbury v. Madison case when declaring the judicial authority. Thomas meant that the integrity and impartiality of judges should also come under review from time to time. In the same letter, Jefferson argues that judges have job security as they are appointed for life. They are therefore, not subject to elective control and hence, less responsible. If they stay in office for long enough, they become drunk on power and may not always make constitutional decisions. When this happens, they may make decisions that contradict with those of the law makers (congress). Decisions in which the courts usurp the constitutionally granted authority of the people in a just democratic polity are incorrect and unconstitutional. Any such ruling usurps the just authority of the people to govern themselves through the constitutional procedures of deliberative democracy. In reaction to Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, Thomas Jefferson warned that judicial review would lead to a form of despotism. A legal scholar by the name Robert Lowry Clinton also interpreted the letter to mean that the Court was creating a very different understanding of the Constitution to justify what it could and could not do within its own sphere. Thomas’ fear is justified as many judges now hold an unconstitutional view of their ability to strike down legislative acts that do not please them. The courts regularly surpass their constitutional boundaries when executing their duties. In making the decision, Chief Justice Marshall was well within his constitutional rights to interpret the constitution. The incoming congress stopped the delivery of the commissions to the hastily appointed judges. If the Supreme Court had overruled the decision of congress, then they would have been acting out of their jurisdiction powers. Congress had acted well within their constitutional powers in issuing the appointment and had followed the appropriate procedures.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture