Legislative branch powers over judicial branch

The case was a political victory for Marshall and the Federalists. Although he declared the Court incapable of giving Marbury the commission, Marshall assumed the greater power to review, in cases before the Court, laws passed by the Democratic-Republican controlled Congress. Marshall's opinion on judicial review still stands, and federal courts routinely review congressional laws in the cases before them.

Americans would probably have to enact a constitutional amendment to strip the federal judiciary of the power of judicial review. As of , the Supreme Court has struck down only around federal laws and executive orders as unconstitutional. The mere existence of judicial review, however, can affect the laws that Congress passes. Deciding whether a law violates the constitution is a part of the judiciary's job.

Federal courts, however, do not engage in judicial view as often as they engage in judicial interpretation. This is the process of deciding what a law means and how it applies in a specific case. Judicial interpretation becomes necessary for many reasons. Sometimes a situation arises that Congress did not envision when it wrote a law.

Other times a law is written in a poor or confusing fashion. And in some instances, Congress purposefully writes a law in general terms, leaving it to the courts to apply the law to specific cases. The judiciary has been called the least dangerous branch of the federal government in terms of how much power it has compared to the president and Congress.

Judicial interpretation, however, can be very powerful. For example, in Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act. The act was meant to prevent business monopolies from dominating areas of commerce, or the economy. It declared that every contract, combination, or conspiracy that restrains trade is illegal. A restraint of trade is something that interferes with the free operation of the economy.

In , the U. Supreme Court heard a case that required interpretation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Court decided that the act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, but only "unreasonable" restraints of trade. Deciding what is reasonable and what is unreasonable gives the federal courts great discretion in Sherman Act cases.

Engaging in judicial interpretation, the Supreme Court has also used the Sherman Act to defeat activity by labor unions trying to protect the rights of workers, even though Congress passed the act to prevent unfair business activity. Some scholars and citizens believe judicial interpretation gives the courts too much power, allowing them to make policies that Congress should make instead.

For instance, in , Congress proposed, and in America adopted, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The amendment says all Americans are entitled to equal protection of the laws. One purpose of the amendment was to prevent unequal treatment of African Americans , who had been freed from slavery in under the Thirteenth Amendment.

In the case Plessy v. Ferguson, however, the Supreme Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment did not prevent states from requiring whites and blacks to use separate railway cars. The Court ruled that "separate but equal" facilities satisfied the "equal protection" requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. This rule stood until , when the Supreme Court unanimously decided in Brown v.

Board of Education of Topeka that separate public services are not equal under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment, however, did not change between and ; the Supreme Court's interpretation of it changed. Hence, it is sometimes hard to distinguish between the power of judicial interpretation and the power to make the laws.

While judicial review and interpretation are powerful, they have limits. The strongest limit is the constitutional requirement that the Supreme Court decide only cases and controversies. Other limits have been created by the judiciary itself, which does not always abide by them. Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution contains a list of the "cases" and "controversies" to which the judicial power extends, or applies.

It includes:. The Supreme Court and lower federal courts have the power to resolve only those "cases" and "controversies" listed in the Constitution. This means that if someone files a federal lawsuit that does not come from this list of cases and controversies, the court cannot hear the case. It also means that if Congress passes a law of which the Supreme Court disapproves, the Court cannot strike down the law on its own.

Instead, it must wait until someone files an appropriate "case" or "controversy" to challenge the law. Likewise, the Court cannot express an official opinion on a question from another branch of the government. It can only speak through the opinions it issues in real cases or controversies. Sometimes people who want to challenge a law or governmental action will create a lawsuit even though they do not have a real problem between them.

The judiciary calls such lawsuits friendly suits or test cases. Federal courts generally will not hear friendly suits or test cases. The reason is that such cases are not real "cases" or "controversies" under the Constitution. The Supreme Court and lower courts, however, occasionally break this rule, hearing friendly suits and test cases when the issues are important.

This happened in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. In this lawsuit, a shareholder of a corporation sued the corporation to prevent it from paying an income tax passed by Congress. A shareholder is a person who owns a portion of a corporation. An income tax is a tax on earnings. The corporation and the shareholders both did not want to pay the tax, so there was no true dispute between them.

The purpose of the lawsuit was to give the Supreme Court a chance to rule whether the income tax was lawful under the Constitution. The Supreme Court considered the case important enough to decide even though the lawsuit was really a friendly suit or test case. The Supreme Court declared the tax law unconstitutional, eliminating federal income taxes until the nation amended the Constitution to allow income taxes under the Sixteenth Amendment in Ripeness and mootness are doctrines the judiciary uses to limit the kinds of cases it will consider.

Under the ripeness doctrine, a court will not hear a case until the law that applies to the case has been enforced. The reason is that the way in which an enforcement agency enforces or interprets a law might affect the way a court decides a case. Until then, the case is not ripe, or ready, for consideration. Under the mootness doctrine, a court will not hear a case when the problem that resulted in the case has disappeared or has otherwise been resolved by the parties.

Courts prefer to decide cases only when there is a problem to resolve. If the problem has been resolved, the case is considered moot, or dead. Despite these doctrines, courts sometimes hear and decide cases that are moot or not ripe if the case is important enough to the judges or justices in charge. If a federal court can decide a case without interpreting the Constitution, it generally will do so.

Legislative branch powers over judicial branch

This is because courts usually prefer to save constitutional interpretation for cases that cannot be resolved any other way. The practice is supposed to protect the Constitution from being interpreted in an unnecessary fashion. This can be frustrating for parties and other citizens who want the courts to answer constitutional questions. Under the political question doctrine, a court will not review government action that is committed to the discretion, or sound judgment, of another branch.

The political question doctrine comes from the separation of powers. The judicial branch usually believes that the separation of powers prevents it from reviewing discretionary action by the legislative and executive branches. An example of discretionary action in the executive branch is the decision to file or drop criminal charges against a suspected criminal.

An example of discretionary action in the legislative branch is the decision to expel a senator or representative for misconduct. Congress checks the power of the judiciary mainly through its power to propose constitutional amendments and pass new laws. Congress also has the power to confirm the president's appointments to the federal bench, change the number of justices on the Supreme Court, and impeach and convict judges who commit treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Congress is the only branch that can officially propose a constitutional amendment. An amendment is a change to the Constitution. As of , the Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times since it was adopted in To propose an amendment under Article V of the Constitution, either two-thirds of both chambers of Congress or two-thirds of the state legislatures must vote in favor of the proposal.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution only if ratified, or approved, by either three-fourths of the state legislatures or three-fourths of the state constitutional conventions called to consider the amendment. Congress gets to determine whether ratification is by state legislatures or conventions. The power to propose constitutional amendments can check the power of the judiciary when America ratifies an amendment that overturns a Supreme Court decision.

Similarly, the judicial branch can strike down laws that it deems unconstitutional, but the legislative branch has the power to amend the Constitution. Another example of checks and balances is the confirmation process for Supreme Court justices. The president nominates a candidate, but the Senate must confirm the nomination, ensuring that the president cannot unilaterally appoint someone to the highest court in the land.

These checks and balances are essential for preserving democracy and ensuring that no one branch of government can become too powerful. They also help to promote compromise and cooperation between the branches of government, as each branch must work with the others to achieve its goals. The separation of powers and the system of checks and balances are designed to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful and to ensure that the government works in the best interests of the people.

The legislative branch is responsible for making laws, the executive branch for enforcing them, and the judicial branch for interpreting them. Each branch has specific powers and responsibilities, but they also work together to ensure that the government is effective and accountable. By understanding the functions and responsibilities of each branch, as well as the checks and balances that keep them in check, citizens can play an active role in preserving democracy and holding their government accountable.

Legislative Branch The legislative branch, also known as Congress, is responsible for making laws. Also Read: Congress Facts The legislative branch has the power to introduce and pass bills, which then become law after they are signed by the president. After winning reelection to his second term in office by a huge margin in , FDR nonetheless faced the possibility that judicial review would undo many of his major policy achievements.

From , a conservative majority on the Court struck down more significant acts of Congress than any other time in U. In February , Roosevelt asked Congress to empower him to appoint an additional justice for any member of the Court over 70 years of age who did not retire, a move that could expand the Court to as many as 15 justices. In the end, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote an influential open letter to the Senate against the proposal; in addition, one older justice resigned, allowing FDR to replace him and shift the balance on the Court.

The nation had narrowly averted a constitutional crisis, with the system of checks and balances left shaken but intact. When his New Deal legislation kept getting struck down, FDR proposed a law targeting justices over the age of What Is the War Powers Act? Since the Constitution was ratified in , hundreds of thousands of bills have been introduced attempting to amend the nation's founding document.

But only 27 amendments to the U. Constitution have been ratified. The act was created in the wake of the Korean War and during the Vietnam War and stipulates that the president has to consult Congress when deploying American troops. If after 60 days the legislature does not authorize the use of U. The War Powers Act was put forth by the legislature to check the mounting war powers exercised by the White House.

In response to criticism that the Constitution blurred the powers accorded to the three branches of government, James Madison wrote a series of essays addressing this issue. In the Federalist No. Madison further reasoned that neither sharply drawn demarcations of institutional boundaries nor appeals to the electorate were sufficient to protect liberty.

The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. To achieve the principles articulated by Madison in the Federalist No. The courts are assured independence from the political branches through good-behavior tenure and security of compensations, 19 Footnote Id. Madison, 5 U. The impeachment power gives Congress authority to root out corruption and abuse of power in the other two branches.