Constitutional law seminal cases of Marbury v. Madison
Constitutional law seminal cases of Marbury v. Madison and Ex parte McCardle were the original Court considerations of the limits and scope of judicial interpretation. Following a reading of these cases and the completion of a review of this week’s reading and video assignment, take an advocacy position on one side of the constitutional review debate and defend it with reference to at least two (2) outside resources.
You should discuss the merits of either “strict constructionism” or “interpretivism” as it relates to both the general process of judicial review and the specific application of that system of review of a specific fundamental right. For example, you should consider the impact of your kind of judicial review upon our contemporary society in the practice of religion or our freedom of speech.
Sample Solution
The debate over the power of judicial review has been an ongoing one for many years and is particularly relevant in today’s political climate. After reviewing the seminal cases of Marbury v. Madison and Ex parte McCardle, as well as the readings and video assignment from this week, I believe that courts should have the power to review laws passed by Congress for their constitutionality. This is because it allows for a necessary check on government overreach while protecting individual rights guaranteed by our society’s most basic legal document.
The ability to challenge legislative or executive action is essential to any functioning democracy (Ritchie 2017). Courts are better situated than any other branch of government to evaluate different policies objectively without being swayed by personal biases or agendas (Gronke & Harris 2018). Thus allowing them to determine if certain laws conform with the Constitution gives citizens greater assurance that their rights will be respected even when dealing with powerful institutions like the government.
Furthermore, constitutional review provides an important safeguard against oppressive legislation (Chemerinsky 2019). It allows individuals who are directly affected by discriminatory practices or policies to challenge them in court which can often result in more equitable outcomes than would otherwise be possible. It also serves as a deterrent against governments trying to enact unconstitutional statutes since they know there will be consequences if they do so.
Overall, I believe judicial review is an important tool for maintaining social stability and preventing abuses of power within our society. It shields both individuals and groups from arbitrary action by those holding authority while still respecting each citizen’s right to due process under law.
