The book begins in Britain where the King and Parliament are expressing their concerns on engaging in a war with their colonies. “America must be made to obey.” America was in open revolt, they declared, and they denounced as traitors those who labored to agitate the people in America. There was a conspiracy going on. All the time they had been professing loyalty to the parent state, they were preparing for rebellion. Opposing ideas were being expressed in the parliament in England, some supporting others against the war.
The commissions were signed by President Adams and sealed by Secretary of State John Marshall. However the commissions weren’t delivered before Adams term ended. Therefore, Thomas Jefferson refused to honor the commissions. The Appellant, William Marbury went before the Supreme Court for a writ of Mandamus to compel Jefferson’s secretary of state, James Madison (D), to deliver the commissions. Procedural History: William Marbury and other justice of the peace nominees filed a suit to the Judiciary Act of 1792 directly with the Supreme Court of the United States seeking a writ of mandamus from the Court that would require Secretary of State James Madison to deliver their commissions as others signed by the President.
In the Confederate States, the hope was that the incident would lead to a permanent rupture in Anglo-American relations and even diplomatic recognition by Britain of the Confederacy. Confederates realized their independence potentially depended on a war between Britain and the U.S. In Britain, the public expressed outrage at this violation of neutral rights and insult to their national honor. The British government demanded an apology and the release of the prisoners while it took steps to strengthen its military forces in Canada and the Atlantic. After several weeks of tension and loose talk of war, the crisis was resolved when the Lincoln administration released the envoys and disavowed Captain Wilkes's actions.
On the other hand, the liberals, or Judicial Activists, believe that the founding fathers recognized that standards of their time wouldn’t apply to the future, so therefore left the constitution broadly based and available for contemporary interpretation. In my opinion, as in many others, Judicial Activism is just an excuse for justices to rule based on personal opinion. The judicial branch of the government needs to show judicial restraint because of the variety of the cases they receive. They need to make sure that the rulings they enact are rulings that follow the constitution and not their own personal beliefs as they have been doing for some time now. In my opinion, the most important example of judicial restraint being in need in American history occurred on May 20, 1940.
In the case Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court invalidated a law, passed by Congress, by declaring an act unconstitutional for the first time. The doctrine of Judicial Review was set forth by this case. The Court did not want to show vulnerability of its judicial prestige so it only asserted minimal power. Marshall’s decision suggests he was aware of the long-term objective to enhance judicial powers and diminish state autonomy. In Fletcher v. Peck in 1810 Marshall was ready to declare a state law unconstitutional.
These ideas were rejected as the framers of the constitution thought this would cause corruption and disrupt the balance of power between the branches of the federal government (Webster, 2016). Later in the convention the Committee of Eleven proposed the idea of electing the President through a College of Electors. The founders thought the selected group of electors was a better process to select the President than going with a direct voting system. The purpose of the Electoral College is to create a safeguard between the population and selection of the President, and to provide power to the smaller states. This system was then written into the Constitution and can only be altered by an
When they won the French and Indian War, England had to make a few reforms. King George III declared the Proclamation of 1763, which forbid American colonists from settling west of the Appalachian Mountains in an effort the stabilize relations with the Native Americans. However this angered many colonists who had land grants there and in turn, the Proclamation Line was ignored. This was the start of a series of disagreements between the two lands, as the American citizens began to gain a stronger taste for independence. Enlightenment writers such as John Locke, who patented the idea that it
The case began as John Adams tried to appoint a court full of federalist judges as his term ended before he handed the presidency over to Democratic-Republican, Thomas Jefferson. All of the processes did not get completed before Jefferson took office and he had his party put a halt put on the proceedings. There was a court case saying that this was unconstitutional. But the question that remained was what power and authority the court had to rule on this case. This case ultimately decided whether the Supreme Court had the power to decide whether the decisions of the other branches were unconstitutional.
CLRI Question 1 “In practice the doctrine of precedent does not constrain judicial decision-making; activist judges can always creatively interpret previous cases to reach the outcome they desire.” Discuss. Introduction Common law tradition requires a particular approach to the discovery, interpretation and development of law. Judges therefore play an important and central role in common law. Although the declaratory theory is that judges do not make new law, It is inevitable that activist judges sometimes creatively interpret previous cases to reach the outcome they think to be more reasonable. To say that activist judges “always” do that so as to make the outcome they “desire” would not be very accurate and in fact unfair to the judges.
As anyone can gather these philosophies are in direct correlation with whether a judge is a an advocate of “loose construction” or if he/she is a supporter of the “textualist” theory. A judicial activist will be more likely to use “loose construction” because it provides the judge to use his own implementation on an issue while, for lack of better word, “manipulating” the Constitution in his favor. While conversely, a judge who uses judicial restraint will be likely to use the “textualist” theory because it strictly abides to the Constitution, the guidelines of life. They are both equally necessary to the judicial system mainly because they both provide a liberal and a conservative view on an issue. In addition, judicial activism can correct pressing needs especially those unmet by the majoritarian policy.