subject: What Is Judicial Review [print this page] Chief Justice John Marshall began his verdict by acknowledging that although all the branches of the United States government take oaths to uphold the constitution above all other political principles, that the courts retain the primary responsibility to challenge any law that appeared to contradict the nature of the constitution and its intentions. Marshall was a firm believer in the power of the courts to uphold the law above all other acting bodies of government. He held this belief for several reasons. When one observes that the other bodies of government, the legislature and the executive branch, one must distinctly understand that these bodies of government hold other responsibilities aside from the responsibility of the constitution itself. Many people believe that these two branches of government hold a distinct responsibility to their constituents and their electorate body, and through this, have an obligation to pass laws relating to the benefits of those who elected them. Although these bodies of government do have a responsibility to the constitution, it is not their only responsibility, and as such, the courts stand alone as the only independent body of government in the United States. Since the courts are not subject to election, their sole responsibility is to uphold the founding principles of the constitution as they are applied to the levels of local, state, and federal government. In this way, it is easy to understand why Marshall claimed that the courts have the primary obligation to review any controversial law in the United States government. In essence, the executive and legislative branches of government are bound to their constituents in obligation, whether this practice is correct or not. The courts, however, are bound to nothing save the law itself, and through this maintain the first responsibility in protecting the integrity of the law at all possible costs. The concept of judicial review falls squarely within Marshall's opinion claimed in the decision of Marbury v. Madison, and the status of the courts as the only truly independent body of government in the United States reserves its place as the first line of defense for the review of unconstitutional laws.
Marshall also claimed in his decision that the United States constitution held precedent over any legislation passed by the federal government. This is extremely easy to understand in the context of the time in which Marshall's decision was applied. The time in which Marbury v. Madison was decided was not incredibly far removed from the framing of the constitution itself. Through this, many people had a very distinct respect for those men who constructed the constitution, and it was not up to great amount of interpretation because many of the men who had helped construct it were still alive and could interpret it effectively. The constitution is the single most important document relating to any governmental system. Without a constitution, a country has no effective foundation upon which to govern, and effectively the country is doomed without direction. The constitution provides the basic outline for the principles on which the government was intended to be run, and as such, acts as the final authority on the correctness of any laws passed by legislation. The constitution holds ultimate precedent over any legislation passed because it outlines many of the things that can and cannot be legislated. If the constitution effectively took a backseat to every bill that was passed by congress, it would cease to have any purpose at all in the government, and as a result, the government itself would be effectively destroyed. Marshall understood this basic principle of government, and chose to extrapolate on it in his decision of Marbury v. Madison. The idea that the constitution is the ultimate authority of the country falls directly in line with the notion of judicial review for constitutional and unconstitutional laws. If the courts did not reserve the right to independently protect the constitution, the constitution would essentially become an entirely meaningless document, and in the process, the entire government would be destroyed.
Judicial review has long been one of the most distinctive traits of the United States governmental system. The notion that the entire government is subject to review by the independent entity of the courts is one that was entirely revolutionary when it was introduced through the United States constitution. Through this responsibility, the courts are often the ultimate line of defense when the constitutionality of a piece of legislation is challenged. John Marshall fully understood the importance of this when he delivered his decision regarding Marbury v. Madison, in which the first legislation passed by congress was overturned by the courts due to issues with constitutionality. Marshall asserted in his decision that though the executive and legislative branches of government both hold distinctive responsibilities to adhere to the constitution, the courts are ultimately the great deciders of controversial issues because their responsibility is solely to the constitution, and not to constituents and other outside influences. Marshall also supported the claim that the constitution of the United States itself holds distinct precedent over any legislation passed by congress. He claims that the constitution, as the ultimate authority of the land, must have the ability overrule any legislation passed in conflict to it, otherwise, the document itself becomes entirely purposeless. One of the most important cases in the history of the United States, Marbury v. Madison showed the might of the courts system in determining the constitutionality of legislation. Though this is the first time such a thing occurred in United States history, it would not be the last, and set the precedent for courts to alter the very direction of the United States for centuries to come.
What Is Judicial Review
By: Nicolas DAlleva
welcome to Insurances.net (https://www.insurances.net)
