2. What are the differences between the two? Basically, Judicial Activism means that judges use their own political and personal thoughts to influence/help rule on a legal matter. Judicial Restraint means that judges do not use their own political and personal thoughts to influence/help rule on a legal matter. 3.
He argued that they lack the power to act so they are weak. According to Hamilton (1788), they possess “merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments” (p.256). Hamilton (1788) pointed out that the court may sometimes be biased but, “the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter” (p. 256). In respect to the interpretation of the law, Hamilton (1788) believed that the constitution is “a fundamental law…” (p.257) and, “if there be an irreconcilable variance between the two, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents” (p.257). He is indirectly saying; court’s rulings give back power to the people.
Judicial review doctrine was established in order to stem the tyranny of the influential under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review by the judiciary. Specific courts such as the U.S Supreme Court have the power to decide whether a law enacted by a legislature is or is not constitutional. The landmark case that established judicial review was the February 24, 1803, Marbury v Madison one of the most important case in history. The decision by Chief Justice Marshall played an important role in making the Supreme court a separate branch of government with Congress and the executive. case matter presented was an unconstitutional attempt to expand the subject-matter jurisdiction of a federal court.
The power of the Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional leads some people to assume that the judicial branch will be superior to the legislative branch. Hamilton examines this argument, starting with the fact that only the constitution is fundamental law. To argue that the constitution is not superior to the laws suggest that the representative of the people are superior to the people and that the constitution is inferior to the government it gave birth to. The courts are the arbiters between the legislative branch and the people; the courts are to interpret the laws and prevent the legislative branch from exceeding the powers granted to it. The courts must not only place the constitution higher than the laws passed by congress, they must also place the intentions of the people ahead of the intentions of their representatives.
Question of Law: Do the limitations which the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment impose on the conduct of criminal proceedings by the States? Holding: “The Due Process Clause empowers this Court to nullify any state law if its application ‘shocks the conscience,’ offends ‘a sense of justice’ or runs counter to the ‘decencies of conduct.’ ” Reasoning: “The Due Process Clause places upon this Court the duty of exercising a judgment upon interests of society pushing in opposite directions. In each case ‘due process of law’ requires an evaluation based on detached claims, on a judgment duly mindful of reconciling the needs both of continuity and of change in a progressive society” Concurring Opinion: Justice Black agreed with the majority but believed that the issue of graver concern is that there is a philosophy of natural law that
Marshall studied the case in a manner that helped to create the Judicial Review, which allows congress to study the constitutionality of a law. Marshall stated that Marbury is correct in the fact that he is deserving of an appointment, yet the Judicial Act of 1789 is unconstitutional so the court can't give him an appointment. In this case Marshall stated the powers given to the Supreme Court in the Constitution. By using the Marbury v. Madison case, Marhsall was able to create the Judicial Review which gave more power to Federal government, and thus helping his ideas as a federalists. John Marshall also used the powers of Congress and the relationship between federal and state authorities to end a dispute between national and state law regarding banks—McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819.This time was during the Era of Good Feelings as James Monroe was president.
Judicial Review is the power of a court to determine the constitutionality of a governmental action. In easier terms, this advantage gives the Judicial Branch the opportunity to prove ANY law unconstitutional, and choose which laws can pass or fail. Just recently in 1998, the Supreme Courts determined that the line-item veto is unconstitutional, ruling that Congress did not have the authority to hand power to the president. This checked the Executive power and left the former president, Clinton, knowing that once a bill becomes a law, his sole power is to carry it out. One of the main benefits to the Judicial Branch is the power to interpret laws.
Martin’s argument on how the Charter is antidemocratic has six main premises. Firstly, Martin supports his claim by making a point that judges, as they hold no accountability for what their judgments, can “overturn deliberate policy decisions made by the elected representatives of the people where those decisions do not accord with the way the judges interpret the Charter.” Thus, the Charter, according to Martin, is antidemocratic. Secondly, Martin discerns the differences between liberalism and democracy, creating operational definitions for each. He explains that liberalism “is about individual rights,” and is “about the ability of individuals to do as they please without interference from the state.” Therefore, according to Martin, Liberalism “makes protection of the autonomy of the individual more important than the promotion of the welfare of the
. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.” Quoted by Justice Bryon R.
The case of Ricci v. DeStefano presents a conflict created by a law plagued by inherent contradictions within its pragmatic intentions. When discussing the outcome of this case—a ruling in favor of the New Haven firefighters (the petitioners)—beyond the walls of a courtroom, it is perfectly acceptable to engage in emotional debates in attempts to concur with or disagree with the court’s decision. An empirical examination of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, however, yields an obvious conclusion in this particular case with respect to the empirical, judicial decision rendered by the court. What is most fascinating is that the law’s internal contradiction—the conflict between “disparate treatment” and “disparate impact”—aids, in either