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.
The principle was adopted by the Founding Fathers due to their fear of totalitarianism. Montesquieu argued for separation of powers in his book L’Esprit de Lois, where he stated that separation of powers will avoid tyranny ‘When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person…there can be no liberty.’ On the contrary to the US, the UK’s powers are fused; the Prime Minister is both the executive and part of the legislature. In the US system there is also a separation of personnel, this means that no person can be a member of more than one branch at the same time. When Senator Al Gore was elected vice-president in 1992, he had to resign from the Senate. Similarly, in 2008, Barack Obama too had to resign from the Senate.
In oder to prevent this separation of powers was brought into play with a set of checks and balances that prevented the legislative, executive, and judiciary each power over the other. An example of this would be if representatives in congress became corrupt saying that everyone must fore fit there money to them, this could not happen and be prevented because the executive branch can
Today’s society finds it necessary question to what range a jury can take the laws of America, change them, and make them their own. A jury can subject laws created through aggressive hindsight and discussion which leads to a dismissal of a case. This leaves the question as to if jury nullification weakens the rule of law that is in the American Constitution. The altercations of the laws are the result of the juries repeated use of jury nullification. If juries continue to use jury nullification, it will result in a weakened democratic system.
This means anybody appointed by the President then has to be approved by Senate. They can also impeach judges from the Judicial Branch. This limits Executive’s power to appoint people disapproved by Senate. The Judicial Branch can declare laws and the President’s acts unconstitutional. They have the right to do this because if the President is doing something against his right or the Constitution it’s not allowed.
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.
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
Former Court Justice John Paul Stevens who served on the Supreme Court argues regarding amending the Constitution to promote democracy and rights (Posner, Slate.com). However, enacting new amendments to the Constitution is highly impossible today due to the rules established under Article V. Article V calls for an amendment to be proposed by two-thirds majority vote in the Senate and in the House or through a convention called in by the Congress after a request from the two-thirds votes by the states (Posner, Slate.com). This serves to be the first part of the amendment process if an amendment succeeds in the first stage it moves on to the second stage. Which requires three-quarters of votes from the 50 states in order to be enacted as an official amendment (Posner, Slate.com). The framers decided on the strict enforcement of Article V, as they believed in the ideology of stability, which would allow the government to function properly.
If the power wasn’t divided then there would only be the government; no President, Congress, or Supreme Court. This is how separation of powers prevents tyranny. Checks and balances prevents tyranny. According to Federalist paper #51, each branch has a strength over each other. The executive branch can nominate judges for the Supreme Court and can veto laws the Congress create.
Breanna Ellison English 150 11 February 2014 Should Felons Permanently Forfeit Their Right to Vote? Our country was founded on democracy; it is what sets us apart as a nation. How can we consider ourselves a true democracy when we don’t let certain members of our society have the right to vote and participate in that democracy? The answer is that we simply cannot. I believe that convicted felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison because they exercise good judgment: in addition, withholding their rights to vote would be a violation of the United States Voting Rights act of 1965 and the eighth amendment of the Constitution.