Scribd
Upload
136 views2 pages

Unit 3 Question 3

This document discusses judicial review and the Supreme Court's role in interpreting the US Constitution. It presents arguments both for and against judicial review from prominent figures like John Marshall, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Justice B. Gibson. While judicial review can limit democracy by unelected judges making decisions, it also serves to protect minority groups from majority tyranny and ensure the other branches abide by the Constitution, as seen in landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education. Overall judicial review has gained public trust over time by playing a role in societal progress, though some tension remains between limiting democracy and upholding constitutional rights.

Uploaded by

Hayden Casey
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
136 views2 pages

Unit 3 Question 3

This document discusses judicial review and the Supreme Court's role in interpreting the US Constitution. It presents arguments both for and against judicial review from prominent figures like John Marshall, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Justice B. Gibson. While judicial review can limit democracy by unelected judges making decisions, it also serves to protect minority groups from majority tyranny and ensure the other branches abide by the Constitution, as seen in landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education. Overall judicial review has gained public trust over time by playing a role in societal progress, though some tension remains between limiting democracy and upholding constitutional rights.

Uploaded by

Hayden Casey
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Unit Three, Question Three

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." -John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison 1803. This landmark Supreme Court case delivered a strong argument for Judicial Review and established the Supreme Court's role in the new government. More arguments for judicial review were presented in Federalist No. 78 Alexander Hamilton stated "A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning." and in article three which states, "The judicial power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made..." This power is necessary to preserve the nation's fundamental law, to preserve the Constitution. Anti-Federalists Brutus argued against this power, writing that the Court would use judicial review to usurp state power. Justice B. Gibson made many arguments against judicial review. An argument was that the judiciary is not infallible. Judges' errors in interpreting the Constitution cannot be corrected at the ballot box, only by constitutional amendment. We agree with Hamilton when he stated "the Interpretation of the laws, is the proper and peculiar province of the courts." Because it allows the Supreme Court to take an active role in guaranteeing promises that the other branches of government abide by the Constitution. James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10 that our governments are too unstable, and measures are too often decided, not according to the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." The court stands as our greatest protection against tyranny of the majority, and it helps keep the other two branches in check. A disadvantage of a life-tenured judiciary is that it creates tension when unelected people make huge decisions for the people. Their decisions could also make poor decisions, causing the

progress to slow down. Judicial review gave us Plessy v. Ferguson which extended segregation another 60 years. The advantage of an appointed life-tenured court, limiting democracy, is the fact that the judges can reason more than when influenced by the politics, media, etc. during voting. Without judicial review, there wouldn't have been Brown v. Board of Education, which desegregated schools. "The Supreme Court's only armor is the cloak of public trust; its sole ammunition, the collective hopes of our society." Irving Kaufman. Over time, the Supreme Court has gained the trust of the people. The majority may disagree with the court's decisions on occasion, but overall, the majority clearly consents to the power of judicial review because it has played a vital role in our collective effort to progress as a whole. Thank you.

You might also like