Home Article 3 Understanding Debate of Judicial Review

Understanding Debate of Judicial Review

Understanding Debate of Judicial Review

Introduction

Judicial review is a legal doctrine that allows courts to review the constitutionality of laws, executive orders, and other government actions. It has been a subject of debate since its inception, with some arguing that it is essential to safeguard constitutional rights, while others contend that it undermines democratic principles. This article will explore the debate surrounding judicial review, examine its history, and its current status in the United States.

History of Judicial Review

The concept of judicial review first emerged in the United States in the 1803 landmark case Marbury v. Madison. In this case, Chief Justice John Marshall held that the Supreme Court had the power to declare laws unconstitutional under the Constitution’s supremacy clause. This case established the principle of judicial review in the United States and has guided legal practice ever since.

Arguments for Judicial Review

1. Safeguarding Constitutional Rights

One of the primary arguments in favor of judicial review is that it helps protect individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Judicial interpretation and oversight ensure that laws and government actions do not infringe on those rights.

2. Separation of Powers

Another argument in favor of judicial review is that it upholds the principle of separation of powers. In this view, the judiciary acts as a check on the power of the legislative and executive branches, ensuring that they operate within the bounds of the Constitution.

3. Legal Consistency

A more practical argument supporting judicial review is that it provides consistency in legal interpretation. The judiciary has the authority to interpret the Constitution, ensuring uniformity across different jurisdictions and administrations.

Arguments Against Judicial Review

1. Undemocratic

Opponents of judicial review contend that it undermines democratic principles by allowing courts that are not accountable to the electorate to dictate policy. This argument suggests that judges should not have the power to overrule legislative and executive decisions.

2. Legislative Intent

Another argument is that judicial review undermines legislative intent, as it allows judges to substitute their judgment for that of elected officials. This opposition argues for the US Constitution to be interpreted more narrowly and by the text that it provides, rather than abstract interpretation by judges.

3. Overreach

Opponents raise concerns that judges may overreach their power, by imposing their values and preference on legislation, executive orders, and other government actions. This position argues that democratic decisions are overridden by the judiciary’s ideological inclinations.

Current Status of Judicial Review

Judicial review remains a fundamental principle of the American legal system, with the Supreme Court serving as its custodian. It is a crucial mechanism in upholding the US Constitution and protecting individual rights and liberties. However, debate surrounding judicial review continues, with many arguing that the judiciary’s role needs to be more limited.

Conclusion

Judicial review is a complex and highly debated principle in the US legal system. Supporters argue that it serves the critical function of safeguarding constitutional rights and enforcing the separation of powers. In contrast, opponents argue that it undermines democratic principles, legislative intent, and can result in judicial overreach. Despite the ongoing debate, the Supreme Court continues to exercise the power of judicial review, interpreting laws and executive actions consistent with the US Constitution. As such, it remains an essential tool in upholding the legal and constitutional framework of the United States.

Upon institution of judicial review and democracy, the Supreme Court had created a precedence by which future cases were to be handled. Despite its existence for the sake of an improved judicial system, much debate has occurred over the years concerning its legitimacy as well as the role of the Supreme Court in judicial review. This debate has created a specified divide when concerning the Supreme Court.

One of the issues that has been brought up is the fact that Supreme Court Justices appear to give too much respect to the Legislature, even when certain laws seem unconstitutional. Many reside on the aforementioned side of the debate, while still others feel that Supreme Court Justices do well in giving legislation the benefit of the doubt when dealing with their questioned constitutionality. These individuals believe that decisions determining constitutionality must be heeded.

Such a debate falls upon the power that Supreme Courts seem to possess within the realm of judicial review and democracy. It is thought that such overwhelming power to decide constitutionality may be, instead, limiting the contributing authorities of other aspects of democracy. Some are quite concerned with the amount of power one individual may have in terms judicial review.

Another area of debate within the venue of judicial review and democracy is that which concerns the argument of ‘institutional dialogue’. This states that both courts and legislatures join together in a conversation with the express purpose being to attain a balance between that of both Constitutional standards as well as public codes of procedure.

Although this does create a strong basis by which support may be garnered for such judicial review, it may also possess limits as well. Limits include that the type of dialogue needed to be presented may be that which is actually impossible in terms of realization. This is due to the fact that such communication will have to have been so clear, calculated, and concise as to ensure that both sides had participated in concurrence with each other, while in pursuit of a just ruling.

In addition to this is that, in the opinion of some groups, judicial review and democracy may not actually go hand in hand with each other. An argument posed by some includes that of the connection between political righteousness and that of democracy. If such a relationship does exist, then it seems that the Legislature, and not courts, should actually possess authority over final rulings and decisions. Therefore, the institution of judicial review may be seen by some as a counteraction against democracy since judges assume complete power in relation to rulings as well as decisions to overturn decisions based on their own personal interpretation of what must be deemed Constitutional.

The debate remains as to whether or not judicial review actually does go against the realm of democracy, but for as long as such a practice continues, arguments will never subside as there will always be an unsatisfied party.