The Consitutional Interpretation Essay

On September 17, 1787 framers in Philadelphia signed “The Constitution of the United States in which it was approved on June 21, 1788 by the ninth state. Once confirmed, along with the addition to the Bill of Rights it developed a mutual standard by which Americans determined the responsibilities and limits of their government. Looking to the Constitution to decide political discrepancies has helped to substitute and preserve a general agreement among people that are otherwise diverse. The Constitution, although two centuries of complications and trials of the American experiment in self-government, is a testament to the cleverness and anticipation of its framers.

The late 1700s and early 1800s was a critical time period in American history in which our newly independent nation was beginning to lay down the groundwork for how the country would run. During this time, America was in its infancy and its crucial first steps would dictate how the nation would either walk, run, or retreat. John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the Unites States, was a highly important and influential political figure whose decisions forever molded the future of the American judicial system. Like many other great political figures, much of John Marshall’s influence can be attributed to timing; he emerged just as the United States Constitution came into existence.

In America’s time there have been many great men who have spent their lives creating this great country. Men such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson fit these roles. They are deemed America’s “founding fathers” and laid the support for the most powerful country in history. However, one more man deserves his name to be etched into this list. His name was John Marshall, who decided case after case during his role as Chief Justice that has left an everlasting mark on today’s judiciary, and even society itself. Through Cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he established the Judicial Branch as an independent power. One case in particular, named Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), displayed his

Marbury v. Madison has been hailed as one of the most significant cases that the Supreme Court has ruled upon. In this paper, I will explain the origins and background in the case, discuss the major Constitutional issues it raised, and outline the major points of the courts decision. I will also explain the significance of this key decision.

In your educated opinion, is the Judiciary really the weakest branch of government? Explain your answer. Has the Court gained or lost power over time? How would Hamilton respond to your argument?

The Constitution has been operative since 1789 after the ratification of nine states (American Vision and Values, Page 52). Today many question the relevancy of a document 222 years old to our society. The Founders created a governmental framework, defining three branches and giving powers to the government and others to the states. It also guarantees the rights of the people. It took two and one-half years for the 13 colonies to ratify the Constitution. This ratification period was one of great debate and produced a series of essays complied into The Federalist. Authored by John Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay during the ratification debate in New York, they tried to get public support for the Constitution. Thus began the first

The Supreme Court was established in 1789, with its powers stated in Article III of the newly-ratified United States Constitution. In the years leading up to the Marshall era, the Court was little more than a shadow of its future self. It lacked both the prestige and authority of the latter 19th century. John Jay–and his successors, Rutledge and Ellsworth–oversaw few cases, and ever fewer significant ones. Often cited as an example of the early Court’s inefficiency, their most

In the early years of the eighteenth Century, the young United States of America were slowly adapting to the union and the way the country was governed. And just like the country, the governmental powers were starting to develop. Since the creation of the Constitution and due to the Connecticut Compromise, there is the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial Power. But the existence of those powers was not always that naturally. In these crucial times, the Judicial Power had problems controlling the other powers. It was a challenge for the Supreme Court to exercise the powers granted by the new Constitution. Federal Government was not generally appreciated and

The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican

The Federalist Papers contains eighty-five essays written by John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. These essays were published anonymously under the name “Publius” in several different New York State news articles. The essays were written in hopes of persuading New Yorkers to ratify the United States Constitution. It contains detailed provisions of the Constitution. Today, the Federalist Papers are still in use to help those drafting the Constitution because James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were members of the Constitutional Convention.

This quote convinces me that the Judicial Branch created by James Madison was compelling because the branch included the federal court systems. With the Judicial Branch the Virginia plan gave a lot of power to the national government because the federal court systems have power when it is the system of adjudication authorized by the US Constitution and established by Congress.

Alexander Hamilton's definiton of the Supreme Court's power of judicial review was argued in Federalist No. 78.

The reasons why Hamilton states that the judicial branch is the least dangerous branch of the government is that it is impossible for the judicial branch to act upon the other branches of the government. With the judicial branch being the least dangerous, the people’s rights are safe. The job of the judicial branch is to only judge but with the help of the executive branch. Going further, some of the possible effects on the judicial branch being the least dangerous are not being able to attack the other branches of the government. If there was to be no separation between the branches of the government, the liberty of the people would be in danger. Hamilton suggested that it is the job of the union to ensure that the branches are separated especially

From the text of the Constitution itself, we can glean that the Courts were fully intended to speak on individual cases that arose from Federal law or the jurisdiction discussed in Article III. In order for the Courts to fulfill this function, they must interpret the law before them and ensure that it is in compliance with the Constitution and properly enacted laws. However, it does not appear that this creates a singular justification for the review of Acts of Congress, only the acts of states and lower courts. The next evolution of judicial review draws largely on the ambiguity created by two seemingly innocuous concepts found in Article III, the issues of law and equity. In expanding judicial review, the Courts have asserted their role beyond just the basic interpretation of laws, but moved into the issues of equity, which require an interpretation of the spirt of the law, and a judicial construction based on this spirit. The justness of this expansion, and whether it is needed at all, is the core of the debate over the role of the

In this essay I will try to explain and critique the two dominant methods of constitutional interpretation. Which are originalism and non-originalism. I will do this by taking help from “How to Read the Constitution” by Christopher Wolfe, and different source’s from Internet. I will start by giving what Wolfe says originalism is, and then I will give some background to other ways to interpret the constitution, and the founders and interpretation and I will finish up with my view on originalism and non-originalism and the critics to that.