The Case Against Judicial Review Essay

The case against Judicial Review Essay
The Case Against Judicial Review
In order to make a case against judicial review it is first important to understand the origins. Born in
1803 out of the landmark United States Supreme Court decision of Marbury V. Madison, judicial
review gives the court the power to invalidate any law repugnant (or in conflict with) to the
constitution. Judicial review has for the courts, become a self made license to strike down
legitimately made legislation by democratically elected representatives. It has been a tool to restrain
laws that are in the bill stage by the threat that if the bill materializes into law then at its first
challenge the court will strike it down.
In a democratically elected society it is ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This is exemplified by an individual who has brought a case through the court or legal system. Now
that its at the U.S. Supreme Court the person seeks to have the words "under God" removed from
the pledge of allegiance (the success of this case is unlikely because of how the court has a
conservative right wing majority). Another example of a group with their own agenda undermining
democracy is the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union). The ACLU is seeking to repeal the Bush
administration's highly touted Patriot Act. This is an example of a group that is making it their
mission to skirt the proper channels of American democracy and use the judiciary to get sweeping
policy change with or without the consent of the governed people.
Judicial review has become the tool of choice for all the public interest law firms. It is through
judicial review they are able to get (properly enacted) laws struck down or thrown out. Judicial
review goes from being a tool with the intent of protecting the constitution to manipulating the
legitimately enacted laws.
In conclusion of the second argument against judicial review, it is inappropriate for individuals and
groups to have the ability to make frivolous attacks on laws that are democratically enacted.
Furthermore, it is inappropriate to "clog" the judiciary with requests such as removing "under God"
from the pledge of allegiance when they should speak to their congressman or senator over the
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

The Pros And Cons Of Judicial Review
Judicial review does not serve the interest of the people. It serves the interest of the political
designer. The political designer is interested in maintaining power at all cost. When political actors
are in a society where only they are dominant they are not concerned with tactics to secure their
political views or to try prevent an opposing party from gaining too much power. Dominant parties
anticipate continued success while opposing political forces cannot confidently predict that either
party will be in power. In this sense It is preferred to limit the majority. This is the insurance model
of judicial review. "By serving as an alternative forum in which to challenge government action,
judicial review provides a form of insurance to prospective ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The first is the access to the court. "one can array access to the court on a spectrum from very
limited access, as in the original design of the Austrian model in 1920, in which only state and
federal governments could bring cases, to the present design of the German Constitutional Court,
where not only political bodies but individuals may enjoy direct access through constitutional
petitions and ordinary judges may refer questions as well." (Ginsburg, Pg. 36). This is the most
important factor of judicial review because without cases coming into a court there will be no court.
If a court does not have cases being brought to it, it will not be able to expand in power. Judicial
review has different effects in different societies. A good example is the American courts. Stare
Decisis allows old law to stay in place while new law if put in place and followed. In a centralized
system "the court has the power to declare the laws unconstitutional and immediately void."
(Ginsburg, Pg 40). Courts also vary on appointment. Appointment is important because electing who
will interpret the text is beneficial if they are doing it in your favor. For example, the Hungarian,
American and Russian systems use cooperative appointment. The risk of deadlock is present
because of the need of cooperation. Some systems use term limits and renewals as accountability
mechanisms. This is a key component of judicial independence

Explain Judicial Review Using Two Case Examples
Explain Judicial Review using two case examples.
As soon as civilizations created constitutions, actions were being called unconstitutional by those
who opposed them. In some instances, unconstitutional acts were the subject of revolution, regicide,
or as happened in the American political system, the declaration of a Judiciary body. American
judicial review can broadly be defined as the power of this such judicial branch of the government
to determine whether or not the acts of all branches of the government and government official
comply with the Constitution. It derives from the doctrine of "judicial supremacy", which in turn
legitimises this definition by declaring that "both the letter and spirit of the Court's constitutional ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Fundamental law means that generally accepted moral principles (natural law) that should remain in
force. Thus an enduring precedent had been set that would prove to be "the foundation for the
federal judicial branch's power to declare unconstitutional any acts of coordination branch's of the
federal government, the legislative and executive branches, which violate the Constitution." (Nelson
2000, 51–74). While the power of judicial review has been used sparingly and with judicial restraint
since "the rise of pragmatic jurisprudence and legal realism in the early twentieth century," (Siegel,
Ely, McCloskey) there have been certain developments within American society, which managed to
provoke controversy. Indeed, it could well be said that each and every case that goes to the Supreme
Court "involves a controversy of paramount national importance." (Irish and Prothro, 524). One
such case, which challenged the Court's view of the basic right to privacy, namely the Griswold V.
Connecticut case, was prosecuted in 1965. Sue Griswold, the Executive Director of the Planned
Parenthood League of Connecticut along with the Medical Director of the League were engaging in
the practice of giving information and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth
control. Following their subsequent conviction (for violating a 1879 Connecticut law which
criminalised the provision of

The Case Of Marbury V. Madison
For over two centuries, the most important law document in America is the Constitution. More
importantly, among the three branches, the judicial branch has one of the most important jobs in the
government: to check and review the laws established by the executive branch and legislative
branch. Moreover, the judicial branch's job is to interpret and apply the law in the government, but it
is also the only branch with the power of Judicial Review, which the judicial branch decide whether
a law or action is consistent with fundamental laws such as the Constitution. This paper will be
exploring the history behind the paramount case of Marbury v. Madison, 1803 and its decision that
established the power of Judicial Review, the importance and relevancy of Judicial Review in
modern government through the case of Ladue v. Gilleo, 1994, and lastly the criticisms of the
powers and duties behind Judicial Review. The intentions behind the judicial review sprouted from
the disagreements between John Adam's party, later associated as the Federalist Party, and Thomas
Jefferson's party, the Democratic–Republican. Upon losing his re–election race, John Adams
directed commissions to fill the federal office with Federalists, in the hopes to hinder Thomas
Jefferson's presidency. These commissions were sent up until Adam's last day in office. Many of
these appointees were argued to have questionable legitimacy, as many appointments were delivered
at the stroke of midnight–these were the

Early Cases Of Judicial Activism. The Following Supreme
EARLY CASES OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
The following Supreme Court cases provide a useful insight into the growth and development of
judicial activism in independent India.
In the Privy Purse case Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Union of India the broad question was
whether the President rightly exercised his power in de–recognising the princes. In this case, the
court ruled that by virtue of Article 53 of the constitution, the executive power of union vested in the
President must be exercised "in accordance with law". That power was intended to be exercised in
aid of, not to destroy, the constitution. An order merely "de–recognizing" a ruler without providing
for the continuation of the institution of his rule an integral part of the ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
In VC Shukla v Delhi Admin (1980), the court while dealing with the legislative competence of the
state to pass a law establishing special courts for dealing with offences committed by persons
holding high public office, held such courts to be valid. It also held that the court could strike down
an administrative act if bias or mala fides was proved. The court in this case clarified that the theory
of "basic structure" would apply only to constitutional amendments and not to an ordinary law
passed by the Parliament or the state legislature.
In the Bhagalpur Blinding case(Khatri (II) v State of Bihar, it was held that Article 21 included the
right to free legal aid to the poor and the indigent and the right to be represented by a lawyer. It was
also held that the right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest must be
scrupulously followed.
In Fertilizer Corpn Kamgar Union v Union of India the petitioners of a public enterprise challenged
the sale of the plant and machinery of the undertaking, as it resulted in their retrenchment. The
Supreme Court held that sale resulting in retrenchment had not violated their rights under Article
19(1)(g) of the constitution, and likened it to termination of employment due to abolition of posts.
The court ruled that the petitioner did not have the locus standi

International Emergency Powers Act ( Iepa )
On November 4, 1979, Iranian revolutionaries stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took several
Americans hostage . President Carter subsequently issued executive order 12170, under the
provision of the International Emergency Powers Act (IEPA), which froze all Iranian governmental
assets within the jurisdiction of the United States . 444 days later Iran agreed to release the hostages
in exchange for the return of their seized funds and the dismissal of "all legal proceedings of US
nationals against Iran and... judgments via those pending proceedings"; this agreement is the basis
for the Algiers Accords . Executive orders serve as immediate control measures for crises but often
warrant criticism and further examination.
Before the hostage crisis, Dames & Moore Cooperation filed lawsuits against numerous Iranian
governmental agencies. Dames was already furious about slow progress of their case in early 1980,
but Carter's executive order effectively forced the cooperation to relegate the case with the newly
formed Claims Tribunal. Dames doubted the constitutionality of the executive actions arguing that
they exceeded constitutional limitations, so he challenged the executive order directly . Because of
the severity of the events surrounding the executive order, the case was sent directly to the Supreme
Court. Ultimately, the Court upheld executive order 12170; the issues of fund transfer and
suspension of legal claims both proved legal under the IEPA and congressional

Marbury Vs Madison Case Essay
The Marbury vs Madison decision created lasting effects for the history of American politics by
establishing judicial review. Judicial review provides the Supreme Court with the ability to
determine the constitutionality of an act or issue passed by the legislative or executive branches. The
case took place early in American history where the powers of the Supreme Court were only
outlined in the Constitution but never explicitly exercised in public. The Marbury vs Madison
decision is significant in formation of contemporary American politics because it affirmed the
process of judicial review within the Supreme Court which secured the principles of the Constitution
and entrenched the separation of powers idea among the bodies of government in the United States.
After the election of 1800, Federalist Party president John Adams lost to Thomas Jefferson and his
party of the Democratic–Republicans. Before handing off power, Adams appointed "midnight
judges" through the Judiciary Act of 1801 which were approved by Congress. However, when
Jefferson took office, he told his Secretary of State, James Madison to not confirm the appointments.
In response, one of the appointed judges, William Marbury demanded that the Supreme Court
provide a writ of mandamus–a legal order that would force Madison to provide the reason why
Marbury ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court found that segregated schools for black and white students
wee unconstitutional. The decision overturned the Plessy v Ferguson case which championed the
"separate but equal" doctrine. The Supreme Court saw that the implication from the previous case
conflicted with the ideals of the 14th amendment. Although the doctrine came from another court
ruling rather than a legislative source, it is a prime example of how judicial review is a necessary
power to secure fundamental

1)Name The Ways That The U.S. Judiciary Is Restricted In
1) Name the ways that the U.S. judiciary is restricted in deciding cases. How do these restrictions
affect the legal environment?
The judiciary system is defined by Article III in the Constitution and Section 2 describes the powers
and limitations that court system has. The purpose of the judiciary is to handle interpretations of the
laws created by the constitution and any disputes that arises between parties, cases may be brought
to the court, the court cannot create cases. There are 3 levels in the court system, which is true for
the state judiciary as well as the Federal level. The two lower levels attempt resolve issues while
lessoning the burden on the supreme courts. The lowest level of court is the district court aka trial
courts, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Once a judge has been appointed, their only source of input when making decisions is the laws that
were created. They are not supposed to be influenced by outside forces, such as, media or
politicians. Because of this there is a natural buffer from decisions being my by majority rule and
instead left up to the individual judge. Since this is a check on a balance of power I see no issue with
this method, if there is an issue that rises they judge can be removed. So, this non majority based
system of power is a good compliment to the other two forms of (mostly) majority institutions, the
Congress and the Executive banches.
3) The way the U.S. Supreme Court uses judicial review varies between judicial restraint and
judicial activism. Discuss what both of these approaches seek to achieve in deciding legal issues.
The approach of judicial restraint seeks to only act when there is a clear violation of connotational
law. The idea is that the way the constitution was written represents a clearly defined law and that
unless there is a compelling and glaring violation based on fact not emotion or political view, that
the law need not be "reinterpreted". When judicial activism is used the emotions and political views
of the justices may have influence over their decision making and rulings. The idea is that
constitutional law must be reviewed and reevaluated because each case is different and the law
being challenged must be

Judicial Review: Court's Authority To Examine An Executive...
Judicial Review
Judicial review is the court's authority to examine an executive or legislative act and to invalidate
that act if it is contrary to constitutional principles. "The power of courts of law to review the actions
of the executive and legislative branches is called judicial review" (West's, 2008). Though judicial
review is usually associated with the U.S. Supreme Court, which has ultimate judicial authority, it is
a power possessed by most federal and state courts of law in the United States. "The basis for
judicial review goes back to Article 6, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution which is also known as the
Supremacy Clause"(West's, 2008). This clause of the U.S. Constitution says, state laws may not
violate the U.S. Constitution and all state courts must uphold national law. State courts uphold
national law through judicial review. Through judicial review, state courts determine whether or not
state executive acts or state statutes are valid. They base ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
"Judicial restraint is the opinion that the judicial branch is usurping the power of the legislative
branch" (West's, 2008). I believe that judicial activism is needed because it prevents one branch of
government from being more powerful than another. Also, in the case of the Warren court judicial
activism was needed to help promote civil liberties and justice for minority groups. I believe judicial
activism is needed because of the importance the court has played in helping promote equality
during the 1960s' for disenfranchised groups. I believe that all branches of government need to
check it each other because the court has had instances in its history where it is very conservative.
Today's Supreme Court is a good example of a conservative court that has made several
controversial decisions which I do not agree

Pros And Cons Of Judicial Review
Judicial review is defined as the procedure where a court is able to review an individual or
organisation(s) appeal who feel that they have been a victim of prejudice and where individuals can
challenge a decision made. A judge can then review the legitimacy of a decision made by a public
body, where it can be disputed that it challenges the way a decision was made. Therefore, judicial
review is simply concerned with whether the right laws were applied to the right cases and
situations, thus being a powerful way to make the public body alter a previous decision made. Over
the past few year's, judicial review has been seen as an area of growth in the legal system and so this
essay will focus on whether judicial review is a positive or negative ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
For example, politician Peter Mallinson believes "a judicial review into the council's mental health
funding could simply be a waste of resources"3 Therefore some argue that instead of proceeding
with a judicial review, it is better to settle things with the socials themselves to avoid both cost and
time. Another example is a case which also presents how judicial review can be a lengthy process
for both the government and the individuals involved, not only that but it also challenges the
decisions made on something as complex as murder. The case of "Paul Alexander Cleeland v
Criminal Review Commission"4 is one example of how time consuming a judicial review case can
be. Dating back to 2002 the case was ongoing even in 2009, where the claimant was seeking a fresh
decision on a criminal conviction case and hence why some individuals may believe that judicial
reviews threaten the government by allowing people to challenge the way a decision is made, even
on more complex cases such as this one. The claimant who was of 66 year's age seeks judicial
review for a murder case to the court of appeal which was refused on 29th April 2008. However, the
history of this case had been a long and difficult procedure dating back to February 2002 where the
court of appeal had originally dismissed the appeal, the claimant later made another representation
which was

Judicial Review : The Supreme Court
Judicial review is the idea that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government
are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judicial branch, most commonly the Supreme
Court. It allows the Supreme Court to take an active role in ensuring that the other branches of
government abide by the constitution, as they interpret the document. This process is paramount in
protecting the validity of the Constitution as well as upholding the laws set forth by it as well.
Judicial review is necessary, though it is not clearly defined in the Constitution, to keep either the
executive or the legislative branches of government from enacting laws which contradict this sacred
document. It also prevents citizens' rights from being trampled, even if the majority of the people
wish it to be otherwise, by reviewing cases brought before it. Judges serve lifetime appointments so
that, in theory, they may not be swayed by matters such as public opinion or motive of future
political prowess. But make no mistake about it, the Supreme Court itself is highly political. The
case for judicial review is best summed up by the arguments of Alexander Hamilton in Federalist
No. 78 and by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury V. Madison. Federalist No. 78 describes the
need for judicial review, that is, the federal courts would review statutes to determine whether or not
they are in concurrence with the Constitution. Federalist No. 78 asserts that the federal courts are

The Pros And Cons Of Constitutional Courts
The centralized model of constitutional review restricts the power to determine the constitutionality
of legislations to a unique judicial organ, the Constitutional Council in France, while the
decentralized model confines this power to all the courts, such as it is the case in the United States.
The actual debate favors the centralized model as it perceives it as a way of counterbalancing the
shortcomings of regular courts (1), and therefore puts forward the advantages of a specialized court
(2). 1. Centralized constitutional review: the counterbalance of the shortcomings of regular courts
When the majority and the opposition parties of the government clash on important issues, without
the voters being called upon to decide, it is evident that the recourse to the constitutional judge to
decide on the law adopted by the majority has the virtue of appeasing the debate and making it more
serene. Sometimes even, when the decision of the constitutional court is rendered, the controversy is
extinguished. The questions submitted to the constitutional courts are of the highest level, one where
law and politics meet. These are problems relating to the organization and functioning of public
authorities, and often involve the acts of the highest authorities of the State and in particular the laws
of the Parliament, which are considered as expressing the general will. It seems therefore impossible
for constitutional courts to have the same composition as the ordinary courts, as

Supremacy Judicial Review : The Power Of The Other...
Supremacy Judicial Review Among the three branches of government, the branch that had received
the least amount of attention was the Judiciary. Compared to the other two branches, the Judiciary is
rarely discussed in great detail. Federalists like Alexander Hamilton argue that this is because the
Judicial branch has significantly the least amount of power. However, Brutus of the Anti–Federalist
party argues that the Judiciary's power of constitutional review can impact the power of the other the
branches. While Hamilton and Brutus agree that constitutional review led by the Judiciary is
necessary, they disagree on the extent of its power and whether or not it needs to be controlled. Both
Brutus and Hamilton argue in favor for judges to have the power to declare statutory laws
unconstitutional. Brutus declares that it is "through the medium of the judicial power" that allows
government decisions to be "brought" to "the feelings of the people" (Brutus, HCR, 373).
Meanwhile, Hamilton states that the courts act as the "intermediate body between the people and the
legislature" (Hamilton, HCR, 381). Thus, both believe that the judiciary branch plays a significant
role in executing decisions that reflect the needs of the people. In addition, Brutus also states that the
courts are to "decide questions arising upon the meaning of the constitution in law" (Brutus, HCR,
374). Similarly, Hamilton repeatedly mentions the courts rights to "pronounce" acts that are
"contrary to the

Judicial Review Essay
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND THE INDIAN COURTS
Introduction
Judicial Review is basically an aspect of judicial power of the state which is exercised by the courts
to determine the validity of a rule of law or an action of any agency of the state. The courts have the
power of testing the validity of legislative as well as other governmental action with reference to the
provisions of the constitution. The judiciary tries to undo the harm that is being done by the
legislature and executive and they also try to provide every citizen what has been guaranteed by the
constitution. Judicial review has a more technical significance in pubic law, particularly in countries
having a written constitution which are founded on the concept of limited government. ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Judicial Review in India
The constitution of India, in this respect, is more similar to the U.S. Constitution than the British.
Under the constitution of India parliament is not supreme. Its powers are limited in the two ways.
First, there is the division of powers between the union and the states. Parliament is competent to
pass laws only with respect to those subjects which are guaranteed to the citizens against every form
of legislative encroachment. The power of judicial review of legislation is given to the judiciary
both by the political theory and text of the constitution. There are several specific provisions in the
Indian constitution, judicial review of legislation such as Act 13, 32, 131–136, 143, 226, 145, 246,
251, 254 and 372.
Judicial review is a great weapon in the hands of judges. It comprises the power of a court to hold
unconstitutional and unenforceable any law or order based upon such law or any other action by a
public authority which is inconsistent or in conflict with the basic law of the land. In fact, the study
of constitutional law may be described as a study of the doctrine of judicial review in action. The
courts have power to strike down any law, if they believe it to be unconstitutional.
In the case I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu the court laid down a two–fold test: : (a) whether an
amendment or a law is violative of any of the Fundamental Rights in Part III (b) if so, whether the
violation

Judicial Review : An Intrinsic Necessity
Submissions to the High Court Regarding
Judicial review is an intrinsic necessity to the Australian Government and is a critical aspect in
enforcing accountability of both the legislative and executive branches. Essentially, the actions of
constituent legislative and executive branches are subject to review, regardless of these
governmental counterparts holding authority exceeding that of the judiciary. In fact, a number of
provisions for judicial review are upheld by the Australian Constitution itself, confirmed valid in a
multitude of case law. Plaintiff s157 of 2002 v Commonwealth highlights the "minimum provision
for judicial review" entrenched in the Constitution under s75. The case goes on to state that "under
the Constitution of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Sections 7 and 24 and a Representative Democracy
Both of the plaintiff's in this case identified as 'politically active'; this statement makes is unclear as
to what extent this involvement is. It can be inferred that these running candidates had pre–
established campaigns and it is likely that they had developed some form of public support. The
amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918–2015 would immediately prevent these
people from being nominated for election in either house of parliament. Clearly, this in in violation
of a number of implied constitutional rights, particularly that of what is implied under s24 and 7.
Under s24, The Australian Constitution explicitly states that the House of Representatives will be
composed of members 'directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth.' Ideally, the creators of
the Constitution thus intended that the House of Representatives be representative of majority
opinion in its entirety. Section 7 follows along the same lines in that the Senate 'shall be composed
of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people. Thus, the exclusion of those who may hold
public favour is strongly in opposition of the implied rights acknowledged in s24 on the basis that
doing so would not constitute a

The Judicial Branch Of The United States
The United States of America has a very complex system of government through the use of checks
and balances. The system we have in place allows for the three branches of government to control
one another so that one branch could not be the most powerful. What makes the judicial branch
different is that the decision brought by the Supreme Court is the final say and cannot be overruled.
Along with that the election process for the legislative and executive branch is brought to by the use
of a vote while those of the Supreme Court appointed by the president. The process of becoming a
Supreme Court justice seems rather undemocratic and the power given and terms served also seem
undemocratic.
The Supreme Court serves as the head of the judicial branch and is made up of 9 justices, 8 associate
justices and 1 chief justice. Unlike the other branches of government, the members of the Supreme
Court are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. The Judicial branch interprets the
law though the use of court cases and has the power of judicial review where it can rule whether or
not something is permitted under the constitution. Those chosen as Justices of the Supreme Court
are selected by the President and approved by the Senate. They are not elected for terms by vote like
the other branches of Government but instead appointed by the President and approved by the
Senate for life. The reason for this is that the constitution states that justices "shall hold their Offices

The Created Superior Council Encompassed Two Houses, Namely
The created Superior Council encompassed two houses, namely Administrative and Disciplinary
units. The core responsibility of this council is to deliver the requirements by the judicial career.
This, along with the changes in the constitutional structures lightened the rights of the Colombians
as the human rights were added into the new constitution thus protecting their interests. Following
the continuous low ranking in this system, the World Bank, in 2009 introduced projects that
strengthen the judicial operations in Colombia. This project reinforced the activities of the Interior
and Justice ministry and offered quality resolution services for the disputes. By 2013, this country's
judicial system was ranked by the World Bank at 150 out ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
This may cover the transitional mechanism into a new set of operations. Thus, these amendments
may be viewed by some philosophers as unconstitutional thus erodes its validity. Thus, the AG may
be handcuffed from delivering adequate and fair judgment to the proprietors of crimes against
humanity that include genocide and also war. In addition, the AG may be limited to prosecute
selected crimes which leave the crime gap that needs to be examined (Bernal–Pulido, 2014).
The differing in the court opinions hurdles the overall decision by the AG with respect to a particular
case. An opinion that is passed by a certain court sets a precedent that can be used to make a
decision. Hirschl (2006) argued that some of the decisions by the Supreme Court in Colombia are
not unanimous. However, the court takes the opinion of the majority of the nine organs. This follows
a provision of adequate evidence as well as the credibility of such shreds of evidence. The similar tie
of the vote may occur and this makes the situation even harder as the process of re–examination
may influence the decision in either positive of negative way. Beside this, politics also may invade
the decision–making process. Caldwell (1953) discussed the lines between the Colombian
government and the judicial system. Sometimes the powers overlap and since politics constitute the
judicial system through the election of the officials by the national assembly, it is

Judicial Review: The Power Of Judicial Review In India
JUDICIAL REVIEW IN INDIA
Meaning
Judicial Review is the power of the judiciary to review the actions taken by the legislature and the
executive organ of the government and decide whether or not the actions taken by the legislature
and the executive are in conformity with the Constitution. If the enactments done by the legislature
and the executive are found unconstitutional then the judiciary has the power to declare those acts
illegal, unconstitutional and invalid ( null and void) after which they cannot be enforced by the
government.
Origin of Judicial Review
The judicial review is one of the very important contributions of the USA to the political theory. The
origin of the judicial review has been result of a judicial decision and the continuance ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
Judicial Review can be used in respect of all central and state laws, orders and the ordinances of the
executive. It can also be used in the constitutional amendments
3. The limitation of the judicial review is that it cannot be used in the respect of the laws which are
included in the 9th Schedule of our Indian Constitution.
4. Judicial Review can only be applied to the question of laws and it cannot be used in respect of
any political issues.
5. Judicial Review is not automatic because the Supreme Court cannot use the power of Judicial
review by its own. Judicial Review can only be used when any law or rule is specifically challenged
before it or during the hearing of a case the validity of any law is challenged.
6. When a law is found unconstitutional and gets rejected it ceases to operate from the date of the
judgement. It means that all the activities which are performed on the basis of this act before the
judgement, continue to remain valid.
7. In India the judicial review is governed by the principle of ' Procedure Established by Law' in
which the court conducts one test in which the court checks that the law has been made in
accordance with the powers granted by the Constitution to the law making body and if it is found
violative of the procedure established by the law, then the law gets

Judicial Review : The United States
The U.S. is the only continent where it takes a lot of hard work and have dramatic conflicts to select
and appoint Federal Judges. The main reason why these jobs are very contested for and sought after
by many is because of how the justices have terms for their entire life.. The lesser reason why a lot
people and employees in Washington care so much as to who gets appointed is the case that they
play a very big part in the public's policy making. Judicial review is the primary role of the federal
courts to discuss back and forth if a law is unconstitutional. Judicial review can also regulate the acts
or behaviors that the Executive and Judicial carry out in legislation and the Courts may choose to
declare those actions taken by the other branches or not those actions are unconstitutional or not.
Judicial review is also the main source of power in the Supreme court 's. It has the option to bar the
Executive and the Judiciary to fulfill what checks and balances set out to complete. Many people in
the U.S. think that judicial review has power no doubt but, the people want to know how it is
applied in our government specifically.The courts could use judicial review power in two ways
during the fight to confirm Clarence Thomas: a strict–constructionist approach is an option where
judges will only have the power to judge based only on what is implied on the constitution (non
elastic). The other argument says that judges should try to use powers that are not specifically
mentioned

The Constitution Act Of 1982
The Constitution Act of 1982, or more commonly known as, "The Charter of Rights and Freedoms,"
constitutionally entrenched fundamental civil liberties, which have protected Canadians from both
federal and provincial legislative imposition. Since the Charter's inception, however, Canada's
judiciary has been placed under great criticism and scrutiny due to the fact that the courts were
believed to have been given legislative powers that rivaled both the federal and provincial
legislatures. Through Judicial Review, the Supreme Court of Canada was given the task to interpret
the charter since that wording of the legal document itself was vague enough to warrant
interpretation, and hence, gave critics a reason to believe that supreme court justices have been the
power to legislate without any political or public recourse. Unfortunately, as a result of these
criticisms, various public notions, such as appointed and not duly elected Supreme Court justices
with the ability to legislate, became the main focus in questioning whether the supreme court's
institutional functions were legitimate, and in tandem with the principles of a free and democratic
society.
Given, the misconceptions regarding the Canadian judiciary by both critics and the public alike, the
purpose of this research is to investigate the functions, and criticisms surrounding the Canadian
judiciary. The result of this investigation will provide a clear and informative argument that,
Canada's judiciary did not seize

The Supreme Court Struck Down The Mccain Feingold Act
The demons of a misinterpreted judicial review have corrupted the legislature, the courts, and our
political process. In 2010, the Supreme Court struck down the McCain–Feingold Act as
unconstitutional. The landmark Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission decision ruled that
political spending is a form of free speech and corporations have license to contribute exorbitant
amounts to politicians. Citizens United ensures denies the voices of citizens as representatives are
beholden to outside interests rather than their constituency. I, Justice John B. Gibson, hold that the
power of judicial review is too widely interpreted and, to keep government officials accountable,
must be vested in the masses to rediscover some twinge of our once budding representative
democracy. The Supreme Court often oversteps its perceived legal sovereignty when using judicial
review. Article III of the Constitution solely vests the courts the "judicial power of the United
States" never mentioning the power of judicial review. The judiciary's duty, according to the law of
the land, is "to interpret the laws, not scan the authority of the lawgiver" (Gibson, J.). The judiciary
has not followed a strict interpretation of the constitution; rather, it has encroached on the power of
the legislative branch and the sanctity of the separation of powers. If the Constitution "were to come
into collision with an act of the legislature" (Gibson, J.), the Constitution would take precedent, but
it is

Dual Court System Essay
The dual court system in the United States consists of a federal court system and a state court
system. The judicial branch is responsible for deciding the meaning of laws, determining how to
apply them to real situations, and whether a law breaks the rules of the constitution.
In the year 1803, the landmark case Marbury v. Madison changed the course of American History
when Justice Marshall held that the Supreme Court was constitutionally authorized to exercise the
right of judicial review. Judicial review gives the Supreme Court the authority to interpret the
meaning of the Constitution. Moreover, judicial review is used to evaluate whether such acts of
Congress and the president are authorized by the Constitution. The United States Supreme ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Judicial activism is used by judges that favor the Court's employing the power of judicial review to
overturn state and federal laws. A criticism of judicial activist is the fact that judges rule cases in a
way that reflects their political or personal preferences. Because judges tend to each hold different
political and personal views, judicial activism can result in messy, political controversy. Another
popular criticism of judicial activism is that unelected judges are "legislating from the bench" and
are engaging in the type of lawmaking that should be reserved for elected legislators. The question
remains whether a group of unelected judges with a life tenure should overturn laws that are passed
by elected representatives. A strength of Judicial activists is the fact that Judges broadly interpret the
Constitution and believe that law should adapt to changing conditions. Judges that favor judicial
activism tend to be liberal Democrats.
While in contrast, judicial restraint is seen when judges who favor issuing the ruling that avoids
directly overturning a law adopted by elected representatives. Judicial restraint heavily relies on the
usage of stare decisis. A criticism of judicial restraint is judges are unwilling to go beyond the letter
of the text. A strength of Judicial restraint is that it emphasizes the limited nature of the court's
power. Judicial restraint

Alexander Hamilton Revised
Throughout Federalist #78, Alexander Hamilton discusses the importance of having a judiciary
branch and the power of judicial review. An important consideration throughout the decision of
having judiciary review was appointing the judges and deciding on the tenure in office. There was
high concern about these judges being unelected and serving for life. People thought this would lead
to them being more corrupt and less likely to base their decisions around what the people really
want and need. There would not be a huge check on them, and they would never have to face re–
election, so would not have to focus on keeping everyone happy with them in their position.
However, Hamilton argued that being unelected and serving for life was beneficial for these judges.
Serving for life provides them with the time and ability to become experts in what they do. If they
had to be switched out every so often, we would have judges becoming experts just to be kicked out
of their position and replaced with new, less informed judges who would have to start the process of
becoming an expert all over again. In keeping them unelected, we avoid the influence of factions or
other groups that could sway their, or the public's, decisions on policies and who to elect into office.
They also will not be affected by the comings and goings of political parties, and will place them
above any current "trending" social issues. They do have to serve under good behavior, however,
lest they be impeached. Other

Judicial Review and Judicial Supremacy: a Paradigm of...
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND JUDICIAL SUPREMACY: A PARADIGM OF
CONSTITUTIONALISM IN NIGERIA.
By
A.T.Shehu, PhD(
ABSTRACT
This paper examines judicial review and judicial power in Nigeria under the 1999 Constitution in
relation to the constitution itself and in relation to the political branches of government. This is
essentially to locate where lays supremacy between the branches and the judiciary particularly the
Supreme Court with its final appellate jurisdiction. Judicial review and supremacy of the judiciary
had been of recurring academic discuss in some jurisdictions with written Constitutions, particularly
the United States from where Nigeria largely borrowed its presidential constitutionalism. This thus
suggests that there is a need to ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
They are thus not preclusive or exclusive to any particular race, tribe or nation. The question then
arises as to where actually lay the supremacy8 among the organs of government that are created by
the positive constitution. Is it also in the constitution that ascribes supremacy to itself or that the
people themselves have vested with superiority?9 Superiority must be understood in its normative
nature and therefore be categorized into two; that is political and legal. It is political if it does not
have finality of authority and legal if it has finality of authority. This may for proper understanding
be further characterized into general in the sense that it has the final authority and specific because
its authority can be called to question by the overriding authority. This paper addresses these
questions and others and argues that supremacy, especially legal and general, is a complex matter
and can not be located in the Constitution alone or in any organ other than the judiciary that has the
final authority as far as interpretation of the laws and the constitution is concerned. The Constitution
is nothing, like any statute, but whatever the court makes of it by its (court) interpretation; whatever
the court says the Constitution is; it is and nothing more. Although the judiciary is a creation of the
constitution and positively granted powers, which in the end transcend the constitution itself,10 it
through its power of review or the interpretative

Judicial Review : The United States
The judicial review is the convention concealed by the executive and legislative activities which are
liable for the judiciary to look over. Particular courts that have judicial review authority must repeal
the demonstrations of the state. This happens when it discovers them inconsistent with a higher
power. Judicial review is a case of the detachment of forces in a present day administrative
framework. This rule is translated diversely in distinctive wards, so the method and extent of judicial
review varies from nation to nation (Loewenstein, 2001, p. 370).
Judicial review may well be comprehended in the setting of two particular–yet parallel–lawful
frameworks, common law and regular law. Furthermore by two unmistakable hypotheses on
majority rules system and by means of a government ought to be put together, legislative matchless
quality and detachment of forces. Regular law judges are viewable as wellsprings of law. These
judges are also equipped for making new lawful standards and dismissing lawful guidelines that are
no more legitimate. In the common law convention, judges are seen as the individuals who apply the
law, with no energy to make or obliterate legitimate guidelines.
The division of forces is another hypothesis about how a self–governing society 's federal
government ought to be sorted out. The partition of forces was later systematized in the United
States its Supreme Court verdict in the case of Marbury v. Madison (Loewenstein, 2001, p. 370). It
depends on

The Great Chief Justice : John Marshall And The Rule Of Law
The Great Chief Justice: John Marshall and the Rule of Law by Charles F. Hobson examines the
judicial career of John Marshall, as well as the legal culture that helped to shape his political beliefs
and his major constitutional opinions. The author sources much of his information from the formal
opinions that Marshall issued during his judicial career. From these writings, Hobson presents
Marshall 's views on law and government and provides explanations for what in Marshall 's life
influenced those beliefs. Hobson explains that he has examined Marshall 's judicial writings through
"the perspective of the common law tradition in which [Marshall] was bred" (Hobson xiii). He states
that Marshall read legal texts with a great attention to detail in an attempt to understand the intent of
the writer. Similarly, Hobson tries to gain a better understanding of Marshall 's principles by
analyzing his legal writings. Because Marshall wrote with such care, looking into his writings
allowed Hobson to gain insight into the experiences of Marshall and to conclude how he came to
both his beliefs and principles. Marshall 's thought helps one understand cases before the Marshall
Court better because many of his decisions display common themes, which can be traced back to
experiences he has had in his life. Three significant life experiences helped to formulate Marshall 's
political principles and influence his judicial career: the American Revolution, the state legislature
of the

Marbury vs Madison Essay examples
Marbury vs Madison As the government was newly establishing its stronghold on the nation,
forging its way to a powerful republic and instituting precedents for the future, a struggle to preserve
the foundations of American Society instituted by Washington and John Adams existed as Thomas
Jefferson took office. In an attempt to maintain the "edifice of the National Government" believing
Jefferson would topple the prestigious nation with his atheist views, Adams appointed various
Federalists to the judiciary. Thus, attributing to the single most significant case of the Supreme
Court, Marbury Vs. Madison, a struggle between Republicans and Federalists that would end in a
future altered by fate. This controversial landmark case ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
A few technicalities derived into a failure to deliver the commissions and therefore once discover by
Jefferson who saw them as a judiciary of "ardent political leaders," they were kept from delivery.
Jefferson, wanting control appointed some of his own judges, and attempted to abolish the jobs of
the new circuit judges, of the few whom received their commission. Thus, threatening the
foundation of a stable government and the independence of the judiciary system. John Marshall,
Chief Justice, appointed by Adams despised Jefferson and sought to undermine his power and
authority, which he felt was unjust. Madbury Vs. Madison gave him this opportunity, an opportunity
to attack his enemy head on. He believed the judicial repeal act that Jefferson and this Secretary of
State, James Madison, sought, was unconstitutional, and through these beliefs he acted boldly,
instituting judicial precedent.
William Madbury, feeling he had a right to his position of Justice of Peace, asked the Court to issue
an order forcing Madison to appoint Marbury, whose commission he was with holding in order to
replace him with a Republican. Marshall demanded an explanation why such a writ should not be
ordered, thus attempting to assort authority over the Executive Branch. Marshall was determined to
assail upon Jefferson and used this case as an excuse, especially because of the abolition of the
circuit courts and the

What Role Does Judicial Review Play A Role In Our Government
With Judicial review being such an important concept in this unit, it happens to play a massive role
in our government today. Judicial review is defined as "the power of courts to decide whether a
governmental institution has acted within its constitutional powers and, if not, to declare its action
null and void." This is basically stating that judicial view sets the standards for determining whether
or not an action put forth by our government is going to be within the guidelines of their power and
whether or not it can be passed. If the law cannot be passed it is rendered void meaning that the law
is not going to be implemented nor enforced by law. The

Marbury v. Madison decision played a
huge role when it came to paving a path for

The Judicial Reviews Of Nhs Decisions About Rationing
The courts have generally supported NHS decisions about rationing. Critically analyse this
statement with reference to the judicial reviews of NHS decisions not to pay for a treatment.
"The NHS is the closest thing the English have to a religion". Yet, as with all religions, informed
debate is clouded by myths. The first is that the NHS does not have enough money. Spending on the
NHS rose sevenfold between 1949 and 2002 (allowing for inflation) and has continued to rise since
then. We can never spend "enough" on the NHS because the more we spend, the more demand there
will be for healthcare.
It has been widely accepted that rationing of the National Health Service (NHS) is paramount to
maintaining and balancing public resources. In a utopian world it would be possible to provide every
patient with every medical treatment that they would require, however this is not possible and
therefore rationing has to be applied by local health authorities. Simply, there are not enough
resources and medical staff available to keep up with the ever evolving demands of the public, and
once more, these medical resources can't at times tend to the needs of the medical advancements
made every day. Some equipment and medicines are extremely costly and the NHS struggles to
balance public budgets in the face of such advancements. One survey of a primary care trust in the
NHS found that the panel that made that decision about funding new treatments was faced with
applications that would have

The State Of Public Schools Essay
In Kansas, the dispute between the branches for power began when the judiciary noticed the
disparity in the funding of Kansas' school education. The Kansas judiciary came to the conclusion
that the disparity in funding was a violation of Kansas' constitution. In an effort to fix this, the
Kansas judiciary ordered the legislative to make a solution. However, rather than addressing the
school funding issue, the Kansas legislative branch passed a law that removed the Supreme Courts
right to appoint local chief judges and the ability to set district court budgets. Then, the Kansas
Governor Sam Brownback, who is in the executive branch, signed a law that would remove the
funding of the judicial branch if the Kansas Supreme Court ruled against him in the court case
concerning the funding of public schools. The actions of both the legislative and executive branch of
Kansas' government disregard the system of checks and balances because the judicial branch is
being punished for doing their job. Therefore, judicial review is vital for a judge in maintaining a
consistent balance of power in the government.
In 1789, the Constitution of the United States of America was created and serves as the law of the
land. In the Constitution, there was an establishment of the different branches of government: the
legislative, executive, and the judiciary. In each branch, there are jurisdictional rights that is given
and serves as a guideline for the branches to adhere to. For the judicial

How Is Marbury V. Madison And Judicial Review?
Marbury vs. Madison and judicial review
Historical background of the case
The case Marbury vs. Madison led to the most important decision the US Supreme Court has ever
made. The parties, William Marbury, appointed Justice of Peace under the Judiciary Act of 1801 by
John Adams the former US president, and James Madison, Thomas Jefferson's Secretary of State at
the time, had conflicting interests concerning William Marbury's right to office. Madison refused to
grant Marbury his appointment. This led to Marbury ordering the Supreme Court to issue a writ of
mandamus, obliging Marbury to grant his commission. Marbury's main argument was that the
Judiciary Act of 1789 granted the power to issue former to the Supreme Court. By refusing the
appointment, Marbury claims, is Madison violating his legal rights to obtain the commission. The
Court's ruling in this case, delivered by Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803, had an important
impact on the establishment of judicial review. But was the Court's decision justified?
The case's impact on the establishment of judicial review in the US system ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
As the former mentioned document does not forbid the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus
but simply does not state it, I do not feel like the Judiciary Act of 1789 is in conflict with the
Constitution. The Constitution is not capable of including every eventuality there is, therefore
declaring every law not mentioned in the Constitution as unconstitutional would restrict the actions
of the legislative and executive immensely. Instead, declaring acts as unconstitutional should be
limited to laws or actions directly interfering with it. I do think judicial review is an important tool
in the modern system of checks and balances and plays a significant role in keeping different
branches from gaining too much power. It is, therefore, necessary to

Judicial Review: The Marbury V. Madison Case
Judicial review, similar to many other topics in life, has both its pros and cons. Now, by taking stock
of what these pros and cons are it is possible for a person to form his or her own opinion on whether
the pros outweigh the cons or vice versa, but in order to properly sort out the pros and cons it is
important to list out at the very least the major ones from each category, and carefully consider their
connotations.
The list of major pros based on historical use of judicial review is a good place to start because it
will also give a baseline for the cons on this subject as well. Now, as the Marbury v. Madison case
showed one pro that can be listed is judicial review helps ensure that Congress does not have the
final say on congressional acts as judicial review can be used to consult the Constitutional laws ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
One of the most prominent cons which should be considered is that, though judicial review does
help make sure the constitution is kept, the issue is in the past there were and still are flaws that can
be found within the Constitution. Specifically in cases like Dred Scott v. Sandford this idea is
proven, because though judicial review did allow for the Constitution to be kept the issue is the
basic principle of the Constitution is liberty, but this is exactly what Dred Scott was denied based on
the Constitutional laws. The other large con is that though in theory judicial review provides an
opportunity for the Constitution to be upheld, the possibility of a judicial activism is also still
present. For instance, the Lochner v. New York is one of the first instances where judicial activism
was suspected, but cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade are also good
examples of the possible use of judicial activism. These instances show how though judicial review
might seem like a good idea in some ways, it does still leave room for human decision and

Assess The Role Of The Judges In The Uk
Bill of Rights 1688 art 9 paras 36 – 37 sets out the relationship between the judiciary and the
legislature. That is the judges are not to interfere with parliament's operation to establish and uphold
parliamentary privilege. It gives parliament the right to operate without any fear of legal
intervention within parliament's procedures. This can be used as evidence for the challenge to the
separation of powers in relation to parliamentary supremacy.
Human Rights Act 1998 provision 4 outlines the right to declare an act incompatible with a
convention right. Provision 7 outlines the right for judicial review and that it can only occur if the
action of a governmental body has acted unlawful. Provisions 4 – 7 seem to be concerned with
judicial review, therefore clearly evident that the act made substantial changes to the role of the
judges.
Caulfield M, 'Constitutional Conventions in the United Kingdom: Should they be codified?' [2012]
Manchester Student Law Review 42 examines the uncodified constitution and in more detail
whether or not it should be codified. It also examines the role of the separation powers within the
British constitution. It therefore examines the good parts of the uncodified constitution such as the
elements of flexibility and ability to change it ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
IT goes into how parliament should be the sole legislative body and therefore certain rights recently
given to the judiciary should be treated with much caution. It discusses the Human Rights act to be
one of the sources of the judiciary new rights, which means they can question parliament. It
discusses the dangers of allowing such power to the judiciary and they must show restraint when
given this

Judicial Review And The Indian Courts
Political Science
Essay
Monsoon Semester 2014
Submitted by–
Pradyumna Soni
214048
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND THE INDIAN COURTS
Introduction
Judicial Review is basically an aspect of judicial power of the state which is exercised by the courts
to determine the validity of a rule of law or an action of any agency of the state. The courts have the
power of testing the validity of legislative as well as other governmental action with reference to the
provisions of the constitution. The judiciary tries to undo the harm that is being done by the
legislature and executive and they also try to provide every citizen what has been guaranteed by the
constitution. Judicial review has a more technical significance in public law, ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
Judicial Review in India
The constitution of India, in this respect, is more similar to the U.S. Constitution than the British.
Under the constitution of India parliament is not supreme. Its powers are limited in the two ways.
First, there is the division of powers between the union and the states. Parliament is allowed to pass
laws only with respect to those subjects which are guaranteed to the citizens against every form of
legislative encroachment. The power of judicial review of legislation is given to the judiciary both
by the political theory and text of the constitution. There are several specific provisions in the Indian
constitution, judicial review of legislation such as Act 13, 32, 131–136, 143, 226, 145, 246, 251, 254
and 372.
Judicial review is a great weapon given to the judges. It includes the power of a court to hold illegal
and unenforceable any law or order based upon such law or some other activity by an open power
which is conflicting or in clash with the fundamental law that must be adhered to. Truth be told, the
investigation of constitutional law may be depicted as an investigation of the precept of judicial
review in action. The courts have force to strike down any law, on the off chance that they trust it to
be unconstitutional. In the case I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu the court laid down a

Marbury v. Madison: Judicial Review Essay
In the case of Marbury v. Madison the power of judicial review was granted to the Supreme Court in
1801. The Constitution does not give power of judicial review. On Adams last day in office, several
government officials upheld the case. Judicial review does not exist in countries that have a
centralized or unitary form of government. The elected parliament declares it is the law of the land.
Halsema Proposal to Netherlands has taken the initiative to start the process of judicial review.
President John Adams and the Federalist lost the election to Thomas Jefferson. The lame–duck
Federalist of Congress enacted a Judiciary Act. The act created 58 new judgeships that Adams
appointed. Forty two included justiceships of the peace. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In England their form of government is called the Parliamentary Monarchy and the Queen Elizabeth
II is the monarch for England. Crown is another name for monarch. "It serves as the head of the
judiciary, commander in chief of the armed forces, supreme governor of the Church of England, and
Church of Scotland, and summons and dismisses Parliament and ministers of the cabinet"
(Meadows, 2001). With advice from the prime minister, the crown appoints, diplomats, military
officials, judges, and archbishops and gives awards and honors. Justices of the peace known as local
magistrates hear petty offenses. Local magistrates are unpaid members of the community who have
been appointed by the Lord Chancellor. "Serious offenses are sent ot a Crown Court and jury of
local citizens will make convictions and sentences which will be taken to the Court of Appeals for
the Criminal Divisions with the final court appeals being the House of Lords" (Meadows, 2001).
The Netherlands government based on the parliamentary government and the principles of
ministerial responsibility. "The national government comprises three main instiutions: the Monarch,
the Council of Ministers, and the States General" (State, n.d.). The Monarch is the head of state. The
Queen has the power to appoint formateur and then will form the Council Ministers after the
elections. Council Ministers implement the planed

The Diffuse And The Concentrated Model Of Judicial Review
VI. CONCLUSION
The choice between the diffuse and the concentrated model of judicial review (and, within the
concentrated family of systems, between the supreme court version and the constitutional court
version) is often understood to reflect a divide among two competing theories of constitutional law.
One theory perceives constitutional law as, first and foremost, a field of law, to which regular
adjudicatory method is applicable, along with its assumptions of professionalism, objectivism, and
interpretivism. This theory aligns with the diffuse model of judicial review, since it leaves
constitutional jurisdiction in the hands of the professional judiciary. A contrasting theory posits
constitutional law as a unique field of normative ordering, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
Keeping judicial review within the courts, as the diffuse model urges, will not turn the interpretation
and application of the constitution into an objective endeavor, free from moral, ideological, or
theoretical commitments or from class, culture, and other group influences. Similarly, placing the
constitution away from the regular judiciary, as the concentrated model urges, will not relieve
„legal‟ adjudication from the political stakes that are involved in any exercise of judicial power,
constitutional or otherwise. Classifying constitutional law as more or less „political,‟ therefore,
offers no real guidance as to the optimal jurisdictional arrangement for the exercise of judicial
review; Israel has effectively defied this

Judicial Activism Vs. Judicial Restraint
Judicial Activism
Introduction
When researching for texts written about Judicial Activism, one comes across various authors who
wrote and published works about the topic. These works are mainly journals, pamphlet, brochures,
newspapers, magazines, and articles. Before delving into the subject matter, Judicial Activism, it is
important first to understand what judicial philosophy means. Judicial philosophy can be described
as the way that a judge cognizes and interprets the law. Even though laws are universal, they should
be applied to particular cases with unique conditions. To conduct this, the law is interpreted by the
judge, who determine its meaning and at times the intention of people who wrote it. Among the
major types of judicial ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Judicial activism critics in America claim that the law courts mustn't assume the authority to
intervene in issues that involve ethical and political decisions, thereby disregarding the democracy's
fundamental principles. Contrariwise, a court is, on occasion, considered exaggeratedly restrained
and passive the moment it refrains from defending the rule of law at large and individual liberties.
This paper's goal is to look at the various dimensions of judicial activism, for instance, its history
and the cases supporting it. It will also look into how judicial activism plays a role in the
government, and why there is a necessity for more judges who are activists. The paper will also
compare judicial activism with judicial restraint as well as explain which philosophy among the two
is more preferable.
Judicial Activism
As stated earlier, judicial activism is when a court doesn't confine itself to an interpretations of laws
that is reasonable, but rather create laws. Thus, judicial activism refers to judicial rulings assumed to
be based on political or personal considerations instead of on the existing law. As seen, the judicial
activism essence is when a decision of a judge in a case is grounded upon her political or personal
social beliefs, instead of interpreting the law as it is. Basically, the judge alters the law. Rather than
saying a certain behavior

Judicial Review
Introduction
The controversy of judicial review which at extreme points, is called judicial activism, is a concept
new to India. Judicial review can be defined as the judiciary, in the exercise of its own
independence, checking and cross checking the working of the other organs of the government,
while trying to uphold the ideal of 'the rule of law'. Judicial activism more reformist in character is
often confused with judicial review. According to Black's Law Dictionary, judicial activism is "a
philosophy of judicial decision–making whereby judges allow their personal views about public
policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions, usually with the suggestion that adherents of
this philosophy tend to find constitutional ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The first sporadic effort to incorporate the power of judicial review was in Germany in 1848.
However, it took till 1920 when the first serious attempt was made in Australia to make judicial
review a reality. The European Union, in present times, also provides for judicial review in the
European Court of Justice. Many countries like Germany also have strong Supreme Courts which
reflect public opinion and can review laws.5 Most civilian law countries, however, do not have their
judiciaries interfering with the legislative process and believe in the separation of powers but not in
the checking of unlawful use of power. It is mainly in common law countries, where courts are
obligated to judge according to 'justice, equity and good conscience', where the courts took it upon
themselves to convert this maxim into reality.
Constitutionality India is a constitutional democracy which believes in the rule of law. The
Constitution of India is the basic framework which must be followed to prevent a collapse of law
and order. The judiciary is often called 'the guardian of the Constitution'. This gives the judiciary the
power to interpret the Constitution in order to hold up its basic ideals. This power of interpretation is
at the

Federal Insecticides, Fungicides, And Rodenticide Act Essay
Procedural History: Under the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Federal
Insecticides, Fungicides, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), manufacturers were required to register
their pesticides. EPA had a "me–too" process that allowed for the pesticide equivalent of generic
drugs. Monsanto Corporation sued because EPA was making them publicize trade secrets, which
they claimed was a taking. Congress reiterated in Section 3(c)(1)(D)(ii) of FIFRA that EPA should
make administrative decisions about how much money these manufacturers would get for damages
from loss of their trade secrets. Union Carbide sued because they felt that the decisions should be
made by the judicial court, not an administrative agency. The U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York held that the claims challenging the arbitration provisions were ripe for
decision and that those provisions violated Article III. Standing was approved for all appellants, who
took a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Facts: Section 3(c)(1)(D)(ii) of FIFRA authorizes EPA to consider certain previously submitted data
only if the "follow–on" and registrant has offered to compensate the original registrant for use of the
data. The legislation provides for binding arbitration. However, if the registrants fail to agree on
compensation, the arbitrator 's decision is subject to judicial review only for "fraud,
misrepresentation, or other misconduct." The manufacturing firms engaged in the

The Case Against Judicial Review Essay

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Julie May

More from Julie May (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Case Against Judicial Review Essay