posted
...February 24, 2003 was the date when the US Supreme Court, led by Justice John Marshall, issued its opinion on Marbury v. Madison.
I sincerely hope that any US citizen who reads this knows what this is about and understands its significance, but for those possibly uninformed European and other non-American visitors who have an excuse, I'll elaborate:
This Supreme Court decision suddenly and completely established the concept of judicial review, which allowed the court to strike down laws passed by Congress which were declared contrary to the principles of the Constitution. Ironically, the lawsuit for which the decision was passed had absolutely no relation to the concept of judicial review -- this was something that John Marshall basically developed himself, most likely. It came practically out of nowhere.
So... two hundred years later: is this power of judicial review a good thing, or a bad thing? It's meddled in laws passed by Congress that at times clearly had popular support, and restrained overzealous or power-hungry officials in the government. It's even looked the other way during some of the greatest injustices this country has seen, and created one of the most divisive issues that arguably directly caused the American Civil War.
What a long, strange road it's been... Thoughts?
(Yeah, I know this is a few hours early. But by the time this discussion gets going, it really WILL be two hundred years. So there. )
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"...is this power of judicial review a good thing...?"
That depends on those making the declarations.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by TSN: I think you meant "1803".
Doh!
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I mostly think it's a good thing, as it establishes a strong check against Congressional abuse of legislative powers. And that it hasnt been used enough, due to a traditionally broad interpretation of the 10th Amendment and Artilcle 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Yes, judicial review is a good thing. Check on the executive and all that; probably more important in a parliamentary system than a republican one (Executive being part of the Commons etc.)
In British judicial review, the proceedings can be bought by members of the public; is this the same in the US?
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Members of the public can challenge the constitutionality of a law in the form of a lawsuit. So, yes.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
