Evolution of Judicial Review in United States

EVOLUTION OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW IN
UNITED STATES
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
 To identify the origins and purpose of
Judicial Review
 To examine the constitutional basis for the
powers of the Supreme Court
 To identify and explain the impact of major
Supreme Court decisions.
 To examine current and future Supreme
Court cases.
THE JUDICIARY IN FEDERAL SYSTEM
SUPREME COURT-THE GUARDIAN OF
THE CONSTITUTION
• In a country with a written Constitution, courts
have the additional function of safeguarding the
Supremacy Of The Constitution by interpreting
and applying its provisions and keeping all
authorities within the Constitutional Framework.
• There must be an independent and impartial to
divide disputes between the center and the states
inter se. the function has bee entrusted to the
Supreme Court. It is the final interpreter and the
guardian of the Constitution.
JUDICIAL REVIEW BEFORE THE CONSTITUTION
• Before the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the power
of judicial review had been exercised in a number of
states. In the years from 1776 to 1787, state courts in at
least seven of the thirteen states had engaged in judicial
review and had invalidated state statutes because they
violated the state constitution or other higher law.
• The first American decision to recognize the principle of
judicial review was Bayard v. Singleton, decided in 1787
by the Supreme Court of North Carolina's
predecessor. The North Carolina court and its
counterparts in other states treated state constitutions as
statements of governing law to be interpreted and applied
by judges.
THE POWERS OF THE JUDICIARY
• Article III of the Constitution states:
o The judicial Power of the United States, shall be
vested in one supreme Court, and in such
inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to
time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of
the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their
Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at
stated Times, receive for their Services, a
Compensation, which shall not be diminished
during their Continuance in Office.
THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
The Article VI, clause (2) of the US
constitution is called Supremacy Clause:
Its states that
•This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall
be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which
shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be
the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall
be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any
State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWER
• Judicial Review has its roots in Principle Of Separation

Of Power.
• Three branches of government imposes checks and
balances on each other, making neither of them superior
thus protects the citizen.
• Judiciary through judicial review keeps checks on the
Legislature and Executive.
• It fulfills the role of Supreme Arbiter of the Constitution
ORIGIN OF JUDICIAL REVEIW
o Precursors of Judicial Review can be found in Privy
Council and State Constitutions, and is even assumed in
the early case-law of the republic such as Virginia’s case
of the prisoners.
o Although the constitution is largely silent on the courts
most important function- the power to interpret laws-there
are Four early sources that establish and reaffirm the
power of judicial review.
 Constitutional Conventions
 State Ratification Debates
 Federalist Papers
 Landmark Judgements
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS
At least seven of the delegates to
the Constitutional Convention, including
James Madison, George Manson,
Alexander Hamilton, John Blair, James
Madison Jr. George Wythe, and Edmund
Randolph, had personal experience with
judicial review because they had been
lawyers or judges in these state court
cases involving judicial review. Other
delegates referred to some of these state
court cases during the debates at the
Constitutional Convention. The concept of
judicial review therefore was familiar to the
framers and to the public before the
Constitutional Convention.
STATE RATIFICATION DEBATES
 Judicial review was discussed in at least seven of the
thirteen state ratifying conventions, and was mentioned
by almost two dozen delegates. In each of these
conventions, delegates asserted that the proposed
Constitution would allow the courts to exercise judicial
review.
 For example, James Wilson asserted in the Pennsylvania
ratifying convention that federal judges would exercise
judicial review.
 In the Connecticut ratifying convention, Oliver Ellsworth
likewise described judicial review as a feature of the
Constitution.
 After reviewing the statements made by the founders,
one scholar concluded: "The evidence from the
Constitutional Convention and from the state ratification
conventions is overwhelming that the original public
meaning of the term 'judicial power' [in Article III] included
the power to nullify unconstitutional laws."
FEDERALIST 78
The interpretation of the laws is the proper
and peculiar province of the courts. A
constitution is, in fact, and must be
regarded by the judges, as fundamental
law. It therefore belongs to them ascertain
its meaning of any particular act
proceeding from the legislative body. If
there should happen to be an
irreconcilable variance between two, that
which has the superior obligation and
validity ought, of course, to be preferred;
or, in other words, the constitution ought to
be preferred to the statute, the intention of
the people to the intention of their agents—
Alexander Hamilton
MARBURY V. MADISON
SIGNIFICANCE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
• Confirms the framers’
intention to create three
separate and independent
branches of government.
• Judicial review established
the courts unique ability to
interpret the constitution.
• The interpretation may
change with the times, as
the court makes decisions
on a case-by case basis.
THE CONTINUING CONTROVERSY OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW
• Despite having been reaffirmed by
Marbury V. Madison, many continue
to questions the power of the
judiciary to interpret the Law.
• Many of the questions surrounding
Judicial Review arise from
controversial court cases.
• In each of these cases, opponents
of the courts decisions felt that the
justices had gone too far, practicing
what’s called as “Judicial Activisim”-
that is going beyond mere
interpretation of the law to the
creation of new law.
THE FINAL SAY?
THANK YOU

Evolution of Judicial Review in United States

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evolution of Judicial Review in United States

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EVOLUTION OF

• Judicial Review has its roots in Principle Of Separation

You might also like