The Supreme Court dramatically enlarged its jurisdiction in a series of key rulings. In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court established itself as the last arbitrator of the Constitution, with the authority to declare actions of Congress invalid. Peck (1810) declared the Court's authority to overturn state legislation. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) held that the Bank of the United States was a constitutional entity.
In United States v. Nixon (1974), the Court ruled that the President could not avoid judicial proceedings by claiming executive privilege. The court ordered the President to turn over tapes of his conversations with former Attorney General John Mitchell during the Watergate scandal.
In Clinton v. City of New York (1998), the Court upheld federal statutes authorizing the regulation of interstate commerce. Even though many states had passed their own laws prohibiting discrimination in employment and in public accommodations, the Court said that the federal government has the right to override these laws if it chooses to do so. In Printz v. United States (1997), the Court found that certain provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment because they required states to adopt gun control regulations.
In Gonzales v. Oregon (2005), the Court held that Congress can prohibit the transportation across state lines of antique firearms.
The notion of judicial review was created in the United States Supreme Court decision Marbury v. Madison (1803), which established the ability of federal courts to find legislative and executive acts illegal. Contrast the supreme court's original and appellate jurisdictions. In England, the King or his representative has the final word on what laws apply in his realm. The king can also issue pardons after sentencing.
In America, it is not the king who has the last word but a group of judges appointed by the president. These days, the only real influence the king would have over his or her subjects is through their voice at the ballot box! Judicial review is an important part of American democracy. It allows for checks and balances on the powers of other branches of government. A court can rule that a law is unconstitutional and not enforce it. Or it can rule that an official action was unlawful and take away its effect.
In conclusion, judicial review is one of the three parts that make up the system of government in the United States. It allows courts to check whether elected officials are acting within their legal rights and duties. If they are not, then these actions can be nullified.
Marbury v. Madison enhanced the federal judiciary by granting it the power of judicial review, which allowed federal courts to declare legislation, as well as executive and administrative actions, to be inconsistent with the United States Constitution ("unconstitutional") and so null and invalid. Prior to this decision, such issues had to be resolved by Congress or the president. Judicial review is now considered a key component in ensuring that the powers of the federal government are limited by the Constitution.
In addition to enhancing the power of the federal judiciary, Marbury v. Madison also strengthened the federal government by allowing it to exercise power beyond what was granted by the Constitution to one institution. In order for the court to rule in favor of Marbury, who was suing his former employer, President Thomas Jefferson, for refusing to renew his commission as a justice of the peace, the case needed to come before the court directly. As there was no other institution at the time capable of ruling on constitutional issues, only the Supreme Court could make this determination. By exercising its power of judicial review, the court gave the federal government the ability to address cases involving questions of federal law even if they were not raised in a formal lawsuit.
In conclusion, Marbury v. Madison strengthened the federal government by expanding its authority and giving it the means to act independently of both Congress and the president.
The Supreme Court's decision in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, introduced the notion of judicial review and increased the judicial branch's function. The capacity of the Judiciary Branch to declare a statute unlawful is known as judicial review. In Marbury, the court declared unconstitutional a law that Congress had passed but that President Thomas Jefferson had not signed.
In addition to reviewing statutes, the Supreme Court can also review the actions of executive officers such as secretaries of state, ambassadors, and marshals. The court will do this when it decides whether an individual who has been convicted of a crime is entitled to citizenship. The court uses a two-part test to make this determination: first, it asks whether the person is a citizen under any of the ordinary methods of acquiring citizenship; if not, then the court moves on to the second question, which is whether any of the special methods for obtaining U.S. citizenship through military action or other extraordinary means exist. If so, then the person is eligible for citizenship.
In Afroyim v. Rusk in 1967, the court used its authority to review the actions of executive officers to rule that American citizens cannot be denied passports because they believe in freedom of speech.