The the government. Even though this case was

            The United States government has
upheld a federal system where certain powers are distributed among the three
branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial. The Constitution does
not give the judicial branch as much enumerated powers as the other branches,
but it is necessary to make sure the other branches are making decisions that
are constitutional.

case Marbury v. Madison gave the judicial
branch a new-found power that made it one of the most influential branches of
the government. Even though this case was not brought to the Supreme Court to
establish a new power, that is what happened, making the case very important
and famous in history. In the case Marbury
v. Madison, the Supreme Court ruled against Marbury stating that they were
not the correct court to make a decision. This case is significant because it
was the first time the Supreme Court found another branch acting wrong and unconstitutional.
It was with this case that the Supreme Court established a new power: judicial
review. It allowed the Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional. Though
this was already an enumerated power the judicial branch had, judicial review provided
the Supreme Court with the necessary power they needed to keep the legislative
and executive branches in check. This new-found power contributed to the idea
of checks and balances, giving the judicial branch more authority to control
the other branches than what the Constitution states.  

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

creation of judicial review gives the Supreme Court authority to directly
interfere with laws and decisions the legislative branch makes, essentially
deciding the fate of laws given to the American public. For being in a branch that
does not associate with the public, judicial review gave the Supreme Court the
necessary amount of power to dictate what laws and regulations the American
people must follow. 

question that arose from this case was: should the Supreme Court be given the power
to make decisions over social and political problems that the American public
is facing (Sakall, 16)? The Supreme Court is part of the branch that least
connects with the people. Rarely are justices from the Supreme Court found in
public or in the media. In fact, they hide away from the public eye. They are
not elected by the people like the President and Congress. Yet, sometimes they make
decisions on laws that affect the American public. Is this reasonable?

Constitution is a vague document and in many cases, it is not very clear on
what it states. For this fact alone, the courts are very important in our
system of government. The Constitution does not explicitly state anything about
race, gender, ethnicities, etc. That is why it is necessary to have a source of
power that can interpret what the Constitution is trying to say at the time of deciding
if passing a certain law would be the best thing for the country. When justices
are appointed, they are appointed for life. Having justices that serve for life
would help the court be less bias and more critical because the justices do not
need to be liked by the American public or other branches of government to keep
their position as a justice. Having the same people would also keep the
ideologies, preferences, and values more constant creating fewer disagreements
as well as keeping the Constitution as original as possible.

 The Supreme Court does not have to make
decisions according to how the public may react. Thus, they have more opportunities
to be more critical and make decisions based upon their interpretation of the
Constitution and what is best for the country. The legislative branch creates
bills that later the executive branch signs into law, but they always do this
thinking about public opinion. They are more prone to make decisions that only
benefit those who will re-elect them into office. On the other hand, the
Supreme Court has no obligation to take opinions from the American public.
Consequently, having an objective opinion made solely of interpreting the law
is fairer for everyone. Justices “do not make the rules; they apply them”
(Roberts, 2005, slide 50). Giving the Supreme Court the authority to agree or
disagree with which laws are unconstitutional makes the government more controlled
and fair. It develops a way of creating laws that are not formed to benefit one
certain group, but a majority of the country. The job of the Supreme Court is
to keep our Constitution valued, respected and applied in our federal system.    


I'm Simon!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out