Реферат: Untitled Essay Research Paper By Adam KimballJudicial
Untitled Essay, Research Paper
By: Adam Kimball
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.