Podcast Episode Details
Back to Podcast Episodes
Constitutional Law Session 18: Judicial Review and the Power of the Judiciary
Judicial Review: An Overview.
1. Defining Judicial Review.
Judicial review is the power of the judiciary to review and, if necessary, invalidate actions of the executive and legislative branches that violate the Constitution. This crucial power allows the courts to ensure that government actions align with the supreme law of the land.
Significance: Judicial review acts as a vital check on the powers of the other branches, safeguarding the principles enshrined in the Constitution.
Example: If a law passed by Congress or an action taken by the President is challenged as unconstitutional, the judiciary has the authority to review and potentially strike down such measures.
Marbury v Madison: Establishing Judicial Review.
1. Overview of Marbury v Madison.
Marbury v Madison (1803) is a landmark case in U.S. constitutional law. Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the Supreme Court, established the principle of judicial review.
Background: William Marbury was appointed as a justice of the peace by President John Adams but did not receive his official commission before the new administration took office. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the commission.
2. Key Holding: Power of Judicial Review.
In Marbury v Madison, the Court held that it had the authority to review the constitutionality of actions by the executive branch. Chief Justice Marshall articulated that it was the duty of the judiciary to interpret the Constitution and ensure that it remained the supreme law of the land.
Significance: This case established the principle that the judiciary has the power to declare acts of Congress or the President unconstitutional, setting a foundational precedent for the system of checks and balances.
Quote: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule."
The Role of the Judiciary in Interpreting the Constitution.
1. Judicial Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions.
The judiciary plays a central role in interpreting the Constitution. This involves analyzing constitutional provisions, understanding their historical context, and applying them to contemporary issues.
Significance: Judicial interpretation ensures that constitutional principles remain relevant in a changing society. It allows the Constitution to be a living document that adapts to new challenges and circumstances.
Example: In interpreting the First Amendment's protection of free speech, the judiciary must balance the right to express oneself with considerations of public safety and order.
2. The Doctrine of Judicial Restraint v Judicial Activism.
Judicial restraint involves judges interpreting the Constitution narrowly and deferring to the decisions of elected branches. Judicial activism, on the other hand, involves judges interpreting the Constitution more broadly and sometimes shaping public policy.
Significance: The debate between judicial restraint and activism reflects differing views on the proper role of the judiciary in a democratic society.
Example: In cases related to social issues, such as abortion rights or marriage equality, the judiciary's approach can be influenced by whether judges prioritize interpreting the Constitution narrowly or expansively.
Published on 2 years, 1 month ago