Argumentative Essay: The Test Oath Law Of 1865

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the nation and is responsible for being the impartial judge in interpreting the law of the land. One of the biggest struggles the Court can face is having to rule for what is constitutional over what is morally right. This is not referring to Plessy v. Ferguson where we only know it was morally wrong in hindsight. This is referring to a case where the judges knew fully well that what had happened was a tragedy and an injustice yet, they had to rule against what any normal human being would vote for. Imagine the difficulty in that. Now, imagine the public backlash when it was announced. The conflict of morality vs. constitutionality in the Court in the case of DeShaney v Winnebago County is apparent

The job of a supreme court justice is no easy task. They are given situations that others could not solve and must interpret the constitution in an unbiased way to see what the solution is. Interpreting the Constitution is especially difficult because its ratification was over 225 years ago. This means that the judges need to keep the constitution up to date, while also making sure not to lose the original purpose of each amendment. The constitution

The American concept of democracy provides that no branch of government shall be more powerful and uncontrolled than the other branches (Lutzenberger, 2012). Judicial review is the power of the courts to oversee and prevent the legislative and executive branches from becoming abusive. Through this power, the courts interpret the meaning of laws and their application. They can invalidate a law, which they deem inconsistent with the US Constitution. They can also change the application of the law when interpreting it. Although the Constitution does not explicitly mention this power, the courts infer it from the provisions on the judicial branch in the Constitution. This inference was first made in 1803 in the Marbury v Madison case. The court declared the existence of the power and that it was for the exclusive use of the courts. They use it to interpret the intents of the Constitution on legal issues submitted to them for decision (Lutzenberger).

The Supreme Court often oversteps its perceived legal sovereignty when using judicial review. Article III of the Constitution solely vests the courts the “judicial power of the United States” never mentioning the power of judicial review. The judiciary’s duty, according to the law of the land, is “to interpret the laws, not scan the authority of the lawgiver” (Gibson, J.). The judiciary has not followed a strict interpretation of the constitution; rather, it has encroached on the power of the legislative branch and the sanctity of the separation of powers. If the Constitution “were to come into collision with an act of the legislature” (Gibson, J.), the Constitution would take precedent, but it is

Since the Constitution is supreme over all other, if a court decision does not please Congress, ⅔ of Congress can vote to adopt a proposed amendment. The amendment after ¾ of state legislators or ¾ of a convention ratify it. An amendment holds more value than any court decision and amendments can always be used to challenge a court decision.

In the Judicial Branch, the Supreme Court has the power to disregard the Constitution or listen and go along with the Constitution. The Supreme Court also has the power to do the opposite and decide which case goes with the law and ignore the Constitution. This document shows the powers between the Legislative and Judicial Branch. By the system of Checks and Balances between the Legislative and Judicial Branch, The Judicial Branch has the power to reject laws that are unconstitutional from the Legislative Branch. But in turn, the Legislative Branch has the power to approve appointments of Supreme Court Justices from the Judicial Branch. (Page 162 9.2, DBQ Document

In the Constitution, the Supreme Court is the overriding law of the land. The Supreme Court can overrule the decisions made by the likes of a state or appeals court. The Constitution is clear in its attempts to unify the nation and strengthen the federal government, all while maintaining the freedoms of the states and the feeling of equality. Though the Constitution is written in a vague way, leaving it to be open for interpretation and allowing it to conform with the changes that time brings to society. But because of the uncertainty of the document, it has often been misinterpreted, or has caused a wide array of viewpoints of a certain issues. The most memorable example being that of the Civil War, but today it is even more prevalent when we try to relate modern day issues to the ambiguous instructions left to us by our forefathers.

Primarily, judicial review consists of four main components.5 The first dynamic of judicial review is that the Supreme Court can reject any federal, presidential or congressional, act or law which is deemed to be unconstitutional centred upon the judiciary’s interpretation of the United States Constitution.6 For instance, the Supreme Court can void a presidential-line item veto, i.e. the President’s ability to erase part of a bill passed by the legislature involving taxation or spending.7 In addition, the second factor of judicial review is the authority of the Supreme Court to strike down any state act (gubernatorial) or law (state legislature), which is judged as unconstitutional based, again, upon the Court’s interpretation of the United States Constitution.8 One such example of this power being exercised is when the Supreme Court annulled California’s attempt to enforce congressional term limits.9

A. Define Judicial Review- The power of the courts authority to review the actions of the executive and legislative branch and to invalidate if their actions are contrary to the constitutional principles.

In this case, Chief Justice Roberts determines the role of the Court in his opinion. Roberts argues that the point of the Court is not to say whether a law is good or bad, if the people do not like the bill, it is their fault. Roberts says, “the responsibility of this Court is to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down the acts of Congress that transgress those limits” (Roberts, pg 6). He also says, “we must determine whether the Constitution grants Congress powers it now asserts, but which many States and individuals believe it does not possess” (Roberts, pg 2). To do so, the Court must examine the limits on the Government’s power and their own limited role in “policing those boundaries” (2). In this case, Roberts says the Court must uphold its constitutionality and the fundamental will of the people.

In order for one to understand American Constitutional law, one must first look to the Constitution; and therefore, look to the federal government established in the Constitution. The federal government is purposefully divided into three branches: the legislative branch that makes the laws, the judicial branch that interprets the laws, and the executive branch that puts the laws into effect. Article VI, Clause 2, sets up the Constitution as “the supreme Law of the Land;” and therefore, legislators, judges, and presidents must comply with the standards set in the Constitution. Judges, then, have the function to interpret what the Constitution means and have the responsibility to ensure laws adhere to the Constitution. Thereby, the

It is true that the Court cannot enforce its decision but must leave this to the executive and legislative branches. For example, when the decision to ban public school prayer came down, many states avoided complying with the "spirit" of the ruling by advocating a "moment of silence" to start off the school day. The Supreme Court banned this also in 1985 by redefining and rewording their intent (Woll 146). However, the Court does rely heavily on social support of their ruling and the reputation of the

As far as Federal judges destroying the Constitution, they aren't the only ones who are doing so. Like the Bible (for example) many have often interpreted it's meaning to fall in line with their own agendas or beliefs. If these judges are so bad, the blame ultimately on voters. Too many voters have become "party drones" They vote bases on name recognition or party affiliation.

The US Supreme Court has a number of powers. These include the power to declare acts of Congress, the executive or state legislatures unconstitutional through the power of judicial review. The supreme court justices are also given the power to interpret the constitution when making decisions, again, through their power of judicial review. It is arguable that it is essential for the supreme court to have such powers in order to allow the American democracy to flourish. However, there is much evidence to suggest that the supreme court holds too much power for an unelected body, thus hindering democracy.

Court which is consisted of nine justices. The judicial branch decides on the meanings of the laws and whether laws break the rules of the constitution. The judicial checks on executive and legislative. The judicial can check executive by declaring executive actions unconstitutional and one example of a federal court in Pennsylvania declared aspects of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration policy unconstitutional. The judicial can also check on legislative branch by declaring acts of Congress unconstitutional. One example is