How does the doctrine of judicial review as laid out in John Marshallâ€™s famous opinion in Marbury v. Madison impact our understanding of the federal judiciary and separation of powers? What reasoning led John Marshall to create this power for the judiciary? Were there any problems with his meaning?
Please be sure to define judicial review. Also, please include that it is the Judiciary and the Judiciary alone that can interpret the law and the constitutionality of the actions of both the Congress and the President. Marshall was the first to exercise this power (judicial review) of the Courts, and it was very controversial at the time and it is still controversial when the Court overturns actions of either of the two political branches. Please also mention that by exercising judicial review for the first time, Marshall was carving out a power for the Judiciary, elevating it in its status and power to that of the other two branches of government. Many thought that Marshall believed this to be a necessary act since many at the time (in the early 19th century) believed that the Judiciary was the weakest and least prestigious of the three branches of government. With regard to the part of the Question #4 that asks, “Were there any problems with his reasoning?”, feel free to mention that many constitutional historians believe that while Marshall’s use of judicial review was necessary in order to establish the Court’s authority as the sole interpreter of what is lawful (constitutional), this act was also a power grab on his part.
I will need this is in the following format:
-1 cover page / 1.5 â€“ 2 pages of information / additional page listing all sources
-insert footnotes as needed
-please no plagiarism my instructor will check.
Thank you in advance.