Judiciary Review in the United States

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

This refers to the powers bestowed upon the courts to allow it change or alter a regulation or law so as to show its consistency with the constitution and even a statute. Judicial review could also refer to the authority that the courts have to review the constitutionality of a given statute.

History and usage in the United States Supreme Court

Judiciary review was first asserted under the constitution by passing several acts in particular years. These years are: The judiciary act of 1789, the court decisions from 1788-1803 and the responses to Kentucky and Virginia resolutions. However, it was not until 1803 when the decision of judiciary review was made by the first Chief Justice John Marshal in the case between Marbury vs. Madison to pin down an act of congress to be inconsistent with the constitution. This led to the Supreme Court striking all the state statutes that contradicted the constitution.

History

Warren E. Burger succeeded Earl warren as the chief justice in the year 1969-1986.Burger was considered to be more receptive to civil rights claims as opposed to Earl who was considered to be open minded in his decision making factoring issues such as the Bill of Rights and what laws affect the common citizen in the state. For example Burger helped to re-introduce the practice of executions to death penalty convicts. During the Warren era the laws existed more as a theory than a practicality since no executions were made during his reign. On the issue of civil liberty Burger was far less sympathetic as opposed to Earl Warren who was considered to be sympathetic.

During the time of Earl Warren there was a lot of political animosity concerning racial segregation but warren stuck to his gun defending the equal protection clause which made it unconstitutional to discriminate a person on the grounds of his race. Later in the year 1954 he made the act of racial segregation unconstitutional. Being the chief justice Warren the court upheld the decision between Miranda vs. Arizona in the year 1966 which allowed this to be a method of ensuring the end of racial segregation in schools which were public. It also made it possible for the racial segregated persons to apply for contracts and grants. These social policies of which were passed under the tenure of Chief Justice Burger, the court created a new avenue which were later to be explored in the justice circle they include, the right to Affirmative Action, the right from gender discrimination, the Welfare Rights and abortion.

In contrast though, upon taking over the mantle from Warren, Burger criticized the exclusionary rule which permitted the illegally obtained evidence to be admissible and the Miranda warnings of which were required to be given to a suspect by the police before interrogating them, unlike Warren.

However there were Similarities between the Warren and Burger courts in that both were found to be highly activists. This was to mean that the courts proved to be willing to weigh their own judgment to that of majority elected congressmen or woman and also showed its commitment to protection of the individuals’ rights and the provision of social justice. In as much Burger remained a critic of Warren he did not overturn any of his land mark rulings.

Click Here To Order Now!

Judiciary Review in the United States

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)