The one directly from Marbury v. Madison can only be described as minor. By the time the court heard the case, the wisdom of Jefferson`s desire to reduce the number of justices of the peace had been confirmed (and the Judicial Act of 1801 had been repealed); Marbury`s original tenure was almost halfway there; And most people, federalists and republicans, thought the matter was debatable. But Marshall, despite the political difficulties involved, realized that he had a perfect case to explain a basic principle, judicial review, which would guarantee the Supreme Court`s primary role in constitutional interpretation. Although judicial review has now become an integral part of constitutional law in the United States, some disagree with this doctrine. Several other cases involving questions of judicial review reached the Supreme Court before the case was finally decided in Marbury in 1803. The following are some of the references to Marbury v. Madison and judicial review: The Supreme Court`s decision established the right of the courts to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government. Another way for Congress to limit judicial review was attempted in January 1868 when a bill was introduced requiring a two-thirds majority of the court to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional. [78] The bill was approved by the House of Representatives by a vote of 116 to 39.

[79] This measure died in the Senate, in part because the bill was unclear as to how the constitutionality of the law would be decided. [80] In exercising its appellate jurisdiction, the Court of Justice is not required to hear a case, with a few exceptions. The Certiorari Act of 1925 gives the Court the discretion to decide whether or not to do so. In an application for certiorari, a party asks the Court to reconsider its arguments. The Supreme Court agrees to hear about 100 to 150 of the more than 7,000 cases it is supposed to hear each year. The Bar Association has emphasized that, since the initial attribution of jurisdiction to the Supreme and Lower Courts is general and the clause conferring initial jurisdiction on the Supreme Court does not contain negative or limiting terms, the legislature retains the power to confer initial jurisdiction on that court in cases other than those referred to in the cited article; provided that such cases fall within the jurisdiction of the United States. Marbury has long been regarded as the seminal case concerning the doctrine of judicial review. Some scholars have suggested that Marshall`s opinion in Marbury essentially created judicial review. In his book The Least Dangerous Branch, Professor Alexander Bickel wrote: That the people have the original right to establish for their future government the principles they believe are most conducive to their own happiness is the foundation upon which the entire fabric of America has been built. The exercise of this original right is a very great effort; It cannot and should not be repeated frequently. The principles thus established are therefore considered fundamental.

And since the authority from which they emanate is supreme and can rarely act, they are destined to be permanent. The Supreme Court plays a very important role in our constitutional system of government. First, as the highest court in the land, it is the court of last resort for those seeking justice. Second, through its power of judicial review, it plays a critical role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power. Third, it protects civil rights and freedoms by removing laws that violate the Constitution. Finally, it sets appropriate limits for democratic governments by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or unduly exploit unpopular minorities. Essentially, it serves to ensure that the changing views of a majority do not undermine the core values common to all Americans, namely freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process. For example, James Wilson stated in the Pennsylvania Convention on Ratification that federal judges would exercise judicial review: “If any law should be rendered inconsistent with the powers conferred on Congress by this instrument, judges, by reason of their independence and the determination of the special powers of the government, shall declare such law null and void. Because the power of the constitution prevails. Anything enacted by Congress that contradicts this does not have the force of law. [32] Moreover, suspicion or possibility of unconstitutionality is not sufficient for U.S.

courts to strike down a law. Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist 78 that the standard of review should be a “deviation inconsistent with” the Constitution. Anti-federalists agreed that the courts would not be able to sweep aside federal laws unless there was a conflict with the Constitution. For example, Robert Yates, who wrote under the pseudonym “Brutus,” asserted that “the courts of the General Government shall be obliged to observe the laws of the General Legislature which do not violate the Constitution.” [74] However, the Supreme Court has exercised judicial review in other contexts. In particular, the court struck down a number of state laws that violated the Constitution. The first case in which the Supreme Court rejected a state law as unconstitutional was Fletcher v.