The Power of Judicial Review
Should the Courts Be Bound By "Original Intent"? The power of judicial review is an important feature of our federal court system. It allows the courts to nullify laws that are not consistent with the present-day interpretation of the U. S. Constitution by deeming them unconstitutional. This function grants the courts two major powers: the power to overturn legislation, and the authority to interpret the constitution and set a precedent that later courts will refer to. The latter of the two powers is by far the most controversial. The debate is centered on the most influential of courts, the U. S. Supreme Court, and it's enormous influence on the way that the Constitution is interpreted today. Some critics of the court contend that the original Framers of the Constitution would object to such and expansive power being levied by a branch of government that is largely unrepresentative because of the way in which justices are appointed by the president rather than elected by the people. There are two schools of thought in regard to the way in which the Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution. Former judge and Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork argues in favor judicial self-restraint.
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Framers Levy, Constitution Court, Framers Framers, John Marshall, Original Intent, Leonard Levy, James Madison, Constitution Bork, Framers Constitution, Article Constitution, original intent, supreme court, framers themselves, historical record, intention framers, original intent constitution, according levy, unified intention, meaning constitution, interpret constitution, intent constitution, unified intention framers, base judicial decisions, original intent framers,
Approximate Word count = 1529
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
 |
