Explain the factors that limit the power of the Supreme Court (15 Marks) The Supreme Court has many checks on it to avoid any tyranny as the founding fathers had wanted; this was through checks like the Senate being able to reject nominations of judges, Impeachment and no initiation power. Upon the death or retirement of a judge the president has the task of nominating someone to replace them, to avoid the president nominating someone who largely has similar views as them or overloading a court with conservative or liberal judges after previous appointments the Senate will review the nominations and if they are unhappy with it then it will be rejected and a new nomination must be made, this stops any court from having too much of a political leaning and makes it completely impartial avoiding any tyranny Judges always have the possibility of impeachment as well, although this has never happened to a supreme court justice it did almost happen in 1969 to justice Abe Fortas, who resigned before he could be impeached to avoid having this record to his name. In this justices are always accountable to any scandals or wrong doing within the court meaning they must act in line with what is expected of them. The supreme court has no initiation power, they cannot decide to create a case and review it themselves, they must wait until a case is brought to them before acting upon it, with this balance in place they cannot select a certain area of the Constitution to try and influence an amendment or choose to pass a law without the public wishes. Overall there are several ways the Supreme Court has its power limited, this is through the Senate rejecting nominations, the possibility of impeachment of all justices and the fact that the Court has no initiation power.
Article III of the US Constitution establishes the judiciary branch - the Supreme Court. Although the US Constitution includes democratic principles such as checks and balances and the separation of powers to ensure the equal balance of power amongst the government branches, the legislative branch was designed to be most powerful. The organization and qualifications of Congress also contribute to the democratic shortcomings of the US Constitution. One of the biggest of these government decisions is electing the president, for which the system of the electoral college is in place. The US Constitution did not abolish slavery, and an interesting guarantee regarding slavery was included in Article IV of the Constitution.
This independence derives from the constitution as the founding fathers suggested Congress was to be “the central element of the new political system” allowing Congress to perform checks and balances on a powerful executive. Congress is the branch of government closest to the people and the framers of the Constitution intended it to be the most powerful. Although, in the nineteenth and twentieth century, Congress has decreased in importance as the powers of the presidency expanded. Constitutionally it was given three main powers, all of which remain important today. First, all legislative power is vested in the house of reps and the senate, and within this broad function, Congress is given special powers to appropriate monies, raise armies and regulate interstate commerce.
And the finally precedent in this case is Article II of the U.S. Constitution because this is where it states that a single President responsible for the actions of the Executive Branch as a whole. 5) There is no “official” action that is being challenged. Paula Jones simply wants to be able to sue President Clinton without having to wait until the end of his term 6) At issue is weather or not the separation of powers or the need for confidentiality of high-level information can justify an unqualified Presidential immunity from a court of law. 7) For a separation of powers reason, is a serving President entitled to immunity from civil litigation that came from events that happened before he took office?
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.
In short, the Court was asked to determine whether the segregation of schools was at all constitutional. In this case discrimination was the main factor in which affected the rights of African American’s to have more freedom. The Supreme Court's opinion in the brown case of 1954 legally ended decades of racial segregation in America's public schools. Originally named
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.
The Supreme Court holds the power of judicial review over both the executive and the legislature. The power of judicial review is the power of the judiciary to declare acts of Congress and the executive unconstitutional and therefore null and void. This therefore means that the Supreme Court can strike down bills. We saw this recently in 1998 with the Clinton v. New York City, it declared the Line Item Veto act unconstitutional. Therefore, we can see simply by the powers held by the Supreme Court that appointments have to be controversial, in order to ensure
Ultimately, the facts and arguments should be examined on both sides so that a decision can be made on whether to keep jury nullification the same or whether it is in the nation’s best interest to change it by either limiting it in some way or abolishing it completely. Jury nullification defined in the legal dictionary, is the acquitting of a defendant by a jury in disregard of the judge's instructions and contrary to the jury's findings of fact. In simpler terms it is when a jury refuses to convict a defendant because the law is being unfair. It is a very rare situation when a jury nullifies itself. It is said to happen in about three or four percent of criminal cases that go to trial.
I believe that Marshall granted this case cert. because there was a potential loophole in the Constitution regarding powers granted to the state and to Congress that both Gibbons and Ogden tried to play in their favor. Marshall saw this, and gave his interpretation of it, asserting that essentially, the federal government gets the benefit of the doubt. At the time, although it may have seemed like a not-so-important case, it was very revolutionary. John Marshall’s Supreme Court’s ruling provided a broader interpretation of the power mandated to Congress: “If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of Congress,