Is judicial review constitutional?

Question

In Marbury v. Madison, 1803, the judiciary was given the power of judicial review. It seems as if this infringes upon the powers of the legislature, because striking down a law is very similar, and perhaps even equatable, with making a law. This, then, seems to throw off the carefully constructed balance of powers between the three branches, making the judiciary much more influencial than it was originially intended. Is this power actually constitutional?

Answer 1

It depends on what you mean by "actually."

In a pragmatic sense, whatever the U.S. Supreme Court says is constitutional is "actually" constitutional.

Perhaps you mean, "Should it be constitutional?" Well, obviously there are arguments on both sides -- and they were raised in Marbury v. Madison -- but I would have to agree with the Supreme Court: What would REALLY throw off the balance of powers is if there were no checks and balances to prevent Congress from passing unconstitutional laws.

Finally, perhaps you mean, "Was this what the Framers intended?" Again, this was argued in Marbury v. Madison. Probably the answer would be that some did, and some didn't. However, what is the point of writing a constitution that limits the powers of Congress if there's no way to enforce the limitations?

Answer 2

If society should deem a law unjust or unconstitutional, how else would we resolve it? It would take an act by the same body of legislators who made the bad law in the first place to reverse it. Thus, you would either have to reverse their stance through argument, or you would have to wait for an election to vote them out of office, then initiate a new law to supercede the bad one.

Does the Supreme Court operate effectively? I don't think so. They essentially overrided the democratic election process in 2000. Perhaps they are too powerful now.

Answer 3

actually. A state won't be able to bypass a constitutional replace that contradicts what the federal shape says. as an occasion, the state of North Dakota (%. a state, any state) could no longer bypass a regulation banning freedom of religion. this is component of federalism. Now, the federal shape could be amended, because it has 27 or so situations, to permit particular strikes. The acceptable court docket interprets the form because it truly is written in its entirety. Proposition 8 isn't expressly banned by making use of the form. i could think of it may face a undertaking under the equivalent secure practices clause of the form, this is why state judges tried to alter the regulations in California interior the 1st place. difficult to nicely known how that vote could flow -- relies upon on who's on the court docket on the time the case arrives.

Answer 4

There are semester long courses in law school and multople thesises devoted to this...

Answer 5

No, I don't think so.