Pros And Cons Of Judicial Review Essay, Research Paper

Pros and Cons of Judicial Review

Adam Kimball

Pol. 1110

Instr. Madigan

12/10/96

Judicial Review is the power given to Supreme court justices in which a

judge has the power to reason whether a law is unconstitutional or not. Chief

Justice John Marshall initiated the Supreme Court’s right to translate the

Constitution in 1803 following the case of Marbury Vs. Madison, in which he

declared the Supreme Court as the sole interpreters of Constitutional law. This

is one of the sole purposes of the Supreme Court of the United States. Many

Historical thinkers would find some difficulty in imagining a government set up

to limit the power of itself,but others would argue that this form of government

best works for the people, and not against them. The treatment of the

Constitution by the Supreme Court as a “living” document that is able to be

translated differently over time for the good of the people has as many skeptics

as it does supporters. But, if we do not allow the Supreme Court to translate

the Constitution who then, should the people chose to do such an important job.

If we were to look back at the ideas and thoughts of some of the

greatest political thinkers of our time, we would find that individuals such as

Plato, Niccolo Machiavelli, and John Locke, would share extremely different

views as to whether or not Judicial review, and the Supreme Court as a whole,

would be successful in their ideal government situations.

One of the earliest political philosophers Plato, would find our

present day governmental setup of the Supreme Court to be the ideal group to

deal with the United States’ situation. Plato felt that government should be run

by enlightened philosopher kings, that would rule for the good of the people,

and not themselves. We today see the Supreme Court as a collection of the most

“enlightened” thinkers of our day. They are chosen to make moral decisions about

laws made by others in our society, and decide whether or not the laws we make

are in the best interest of our nation as a whole. Plato knew that within any

political State their would be corruption, to stop the corruption Plato felt

that the philosopher kings would best rule because they would not indulge

themselves in a corrupt society. They only believed in the truth, and justice

that government is supposed to protect its people with.

Although Plato would not totally agree with the Democratic structure of

our government, I believe that he would chose for our society, a state that is

ruled by a similar group to that of our Supreme Court because, the members of

the Supreme Court are chosen because of their ability to make sensible, moral

decisions about issues that may contradict our Constitution.

Niccolo Machiavelli on the other hand, would find a great many problems

with giving the Power to translate Constitutional law to anyone other than the

President of the United States. Machiavelli would also totally disagree with the

idea of having anyone make decisions about laws because they are morally

incorrect. Machiavelli felt that virtue and idealism was one of the biggest

enemies of the State. He felt that a government should be run with the sole

intention of forcing the people to be obedient, and for the individual virtues

of the people to be a non-factor in any political decisions made by the ruler of

the state. He would find that a group of individuals elected to protect the

virtue of citizens, and make sure that laws were morally correct, would be a

totally absurd action that would only cause chaos, and mayhem because it is

impossible to make a government that is completely virtuous. Machiavelli found

the most successful government to be one that ruled on the basis of “realism”

not “idealism”. Realistically, no government could ever successfully develop

under an ideal that would allow a group of otherwise powerless individuals to

decide whether or not the laws that exist in government are morally correct

under the guidance of a Constitution that may be considered to be “Idealistic”

rather than “realistic”.

A more modern philosopher such as John Locke, would find the Supreme

Court and its power of Judicial Review to be one of the most important

characteristics of the United States’ setup of Democracy. Locke would truly

enjoy how successful the beauties of the limiting powers of each branch of our

government. Locke would find that our policy of “Checks and Balances” to be one

of the greatest ways of keeping the government working for the people. Locke

believed in each individual’s right to “self Preservation”. Meaning that we all

equally have the right to uphold the laws of nature. Locke believed that all

people should be treated as equals, and to not treat each other equally would

interfere on an individual’s right to “self Preservation”. Much like Locke, The

Supreme Court exists to interpret whether or not a law is going to interfere

with our right to “self preservation”. Locke felt that for a government to be

successful in preserving the rights of the individual citizen, it must

concentrate on protecting the “Life and Liberty” of each citizen. The

Constitution of the United States is the ideal document in Locke’s mind. And,

the Supreme Court’s protection of the people of the United States, and its

Constitution is also a necessity in running a truly virtuous, and successful

government that concentrates on the rights of the individual, rather than the

people as a whole.

Many philosophers shared different beliefs on how a government could be

most successful. Some believed that a government would be best run by the people.

Others thought that one sole dictator or King could best run a successful

government. Either way, I don’t believe that anyone can contest the success of

the United States’ democratic setup, and its beliefs in protecting the rights of

the individual. It was the beliefs of our forefathers to preserve the rights of

man, and that “All men are created equal”. These beliefs have molded one of the

most successful political states in modern History.

347