From 1789 to the Civil War period the Supreme Court sought to legitimize a number of Constitutional, legal, and political principals that they asserted were essential in the development of the Republic. The framers of the Constitution left many doubts in the meaning and the nature of the Supreme Courts authority. The Court needed to establish and practice the doctrine of Judicial Independence; establish the power of the judiciary and defend the Union. The Court needed to establish that judicial review was solely the Supreme courts power. The Supreme Court recognized that Judicial Review must also be cultivated into Judicial Sovereignty; the idea that a law may be held unconstitutional and binding on the other branches.
VI. * Powers Clause of the Tenth Amendment * Commerce Clause * 3 Which of the following Chief Justices of the Supreme Court was responsible for writing the majority opinion in Marbury v. Madison, wherein the power of judicial review was announced? * Warren * Marshall * Rehnquist * Jay * 4 Which of the following was not intended to protect against tyranny? * Federalism * Separations of Power * Single Federal Executive * Checks and Balances * 5 Assume that a state and the federal government hold concurrent jurisdiction over an issue and furthermore, both have enacted statutes to regulate the subject. However, the state statute is contrary to the federal law.
Strict construction is the literal interpretation of the words of the constitution as they are written, while as loose construction is the contextual interpretation of the words of the constitution (Notes). Possibly the founder and the greatest strict constructionist was Thomas Jefferson. Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution states the delegated powers, and Jefferson being a strict constructionist viewed that congress should only have the powers that are exactly written in the section. On the other side, there was Alexander Hamilton who was a loose constructionist believed in the Elastic clause which was in Section one of the constitution (Lecture). The Elastic Clause states that Congress shall have the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carting into execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof (Angel&Gerberg).
Reasoning: The section of the Judiciary Act of 1792 (passed by Congress) relied on by Marbury which granted the Supreme Court the right to issue writs of mandamus to government officials was unconstitutional and therefore is void and of no effect. The Constitution only gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in cases “affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” It is the duty of the Court to
However, both principles function under one principle which is checks and balances. The second part of the U.S. Constitution focuses on individual rights and liberties. However, we will only be discussing the first part of the Constitution in this essay. The framers of the U.S. Constitution wanted to prevent the concentration of power into the hands of one individual, or even one group of individuals, within the national government. In order to accomplish their goal they decided it was necessary to divide the governmental functions into three: legislative, judicial, and executive.
The US Constitution did not abolish slavery, and an interesting guarantee regarding slavery was included in Article IV of the Constitution. Conclusion The US Constitution serves as the highest and supreme law of the United States. Although
Judicial review in the United States refers to the power of a court to review the constitutionality of a statute or treaty, or to review an administrative regulation for consistency with either a statute, a treaty, or the Constitution itself. The United States Constitution does not explicitly establish the power of judicial review. Rather, the power of judicial review has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution. [1] The Supreme Court's landmark decision on the issue of judicial review was Marbury v. Madison (1803),[2] in which the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts have the duty to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress and to declare them void when they are contrary to the Constitution. Marbury, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, was the first Supreme Court case to strike down an act of Congress as unconstitutional, unless one counts Hollingsworth v. Virginia (1798) or U.S. v. Todd (1794).
Assignment 3.1 Essay Originalism vs. Constitutionalism Interpretation Aaron Schrom September 18, 2010 Bellevue University LA 400 LA 410 LA 420-C024 American Vision and Values Mark Quandahl Philosophy of Originalism There are many people to believe in the idea of philosophy of originalism over the idea of interpretation of the Constitution of the United States of America. The meaning of philosophy of originalism states that “advocates of originalism argue that the meaning of the Constitution (or its individual clauses) was fixed at the moment of it adoption and that the task of interpretation is accordingly to ascertain that meaning and apply it to the issue at hand” (KSS Companion, p68). Critics have said that the hold of originalism
Ogden claimed that this was true only for goods, not navigation. Gibbons then sued Ogden for entry into the state and the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. John Marshall ruled in favor of Gibbons, determining that it was within the federal government’s power to control navigation and that the regulation of “commerce” included laws of navigation. Conduction of interstate commerce was a power reserved to Congress, Marshall ruled. I believe that Marshall granted this case cert.
In order to implement change in the US constitution, therefore, there is a much stricter protocol to follow. In light of the statement above, it is necessary to look into the theory of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Dicey, a nineteenth century constitutional theorist held the view that “no person or body is recognized by the law of England as having a right to