Courts_ second paper

.pdf

School

Northeastern University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

2310

Subject

Political Science

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

pdf

Pages

Uploaded by calliewolflen on coursehero.com

Courts: Second Paper Judge Ireland The American system of government is seen and described as a delicate balance of power. This balance is not accidental but is a result of a deliberate and thoughtful design, emphasizing the importance of checks and balances. These checks and balances are an essential part of the U.S. government system, ensuring that no single branch becomes too powerful, preventing an abuse of power and upholding the principles of democracy. Each branch of the government exercises checks ober the others, and examining specific instances of where checks and balances have played a critical role in maintaining this balance of power is to be discussed. Checks and balances within the U.S. government system begin with the concept of judicial review, a cornerstone of constitutional law. Judicial review refers to the power of the courts, especially the Supreme Court, to review and potentially invalidate laws or government actions that they find to be unconstitutional. This power is pivotal in maintaining the balance of power within the government. One landmark case that established the precedent for judicial review is Marbury v. Madison. In 1803, the Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Marshall, decided the Marbury v. Madison case, which had a profound impact on the U.S. government's structure. Marbury v Madison Marbury v. Madison revolved around a political appointment dispute during the transition from the Adams administration to the Jefferson administration. William Marbury had been appointed a justice of the peace by the outgoing President John Adams, but his commission was not delivered before the transition of power occurred. This led to Marbury seeking a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court to compel Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the

commission. In a groundbreaking decision, Chief Justice Marshall declared that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus, was unconstitutional. This decision was based on the principle that it was the Court's duty to interpret the Constitution and ensure that laws passed by Congress adhered to it. By doing so, Marshall asserted the power of judicial review, establishing that the Supreme Court could declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. Marbury v. Madison's impact on the balance of power was significant. It demonstrated that the judiciary could check the legislative branch by invalidating laws that violated the Constitution. This decision firmly established the judiciary as an equal partner in the system of checks and balances, preventing potential abuses of power by the legislative branch. Example Cases In addition to Marbury v. Madison, there have been other key cases in which judicial review played a significant role in preserving the balance of power. Notable cases include Roe v. Wade (1973), which determined the legality of abortion, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. These cases exemplify the Supreme Court's ability to protect individual rights and uphold the Constitution, even in the face of potential opposition from the other branches of government. US v. Nixon Another important case that exemplifies the operation of checks and balances in the U.S. government is United States v. Nixon (1974). This case emerged from the Watergate scandal, which raised critical questions about executive power, the rule of law, and the accountability of the President. United States v. Nixon revolved around President Richard Nixon's refusal to comply with a subpoena requesting the release of White House tapes and documents related to

the Watergate break-in. Nixon claimed executive privilege, arguing that he had the right to withhold these materials. This case raised two key issues: the scope of executive privilege and the limits of presidential power. The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Nixon was a resounding affirmation of the principle that no one, not even the President, is above the law. The Court ruled unanimously that executive privilege could not be used to shield evidence in a criminal case. The decision established that the executive branch could not evade judicial oversight or congressional investigation through the broad application of executive privilege. The implications of the United States v. Nixon decision were substantial. It reinforced the idea that the President's power is not absolute and that there are limits to executive authority. This case underscored the judiciary's role in checking the executive branch's potential abuses of power and upholding the rule of law. Comparison Analysis To better delineate the effectiveness of checks and balances in the U.S. government system, it is crucial to compare and contrast Marbury v. Madison and United States v. Nixon in terms of their impact on the separation of powers. Both cases illustrate the judiciary's role in preventing abuses of power by other branches. Marbury v. Madison emphasized the importance of judicial review, allowing the judiciary to check the legislative branch's authority by declaring laws unconstitutional. United States v. Nixon, on the other hand, highlighted the judiciary's role in ensuring that the executive branch does not overstep its boundaries, especially in matters related to the rule of law and accountability. Marbury v. Madison set a precedent for judicial review, while United States v. Nixon underscored the principle that no one, including the President, is immune from legal scrutiny. These cases collectively demonstrate that the system of checks and balances in the U.S. government is effective in preventing and rectifying abuses of

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version