Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
In Justice Gibson's critique of Chief Ju...View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
In his opinion in Marbury v. Madison, Ch...View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
Yates's views on the proposed Supreme Court of the United States were confirmed in several ways by the decisions in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) and Marbury v. Madison (1803) and the circumstances surrounding those cases. In Chisholm v. Georgia, the Supreme Court affirmed the right of individuals to sue states in federal court, which aligned with Yates's concern that the Court would have too much power over the states. Additionally, in Marbury v. Madison, the Court asserted its power of judicial review, allowing it to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional, which was in line with Yates's fear of the Court becoming too powerful and potentially overruling the other branches of government.
However, Yates's views were also refuted in some ways by the decisions and circumstances surrounding those cases. In Chisholm v. Georgia, the backlash against the Court's decision ultimately led to the ratification of the Eleventh Amendment, which limited the Court's jurisdiction over cases involving states. This demonstrated that the states had the ability to push back against the Court's decisions, contrary to Yates's fears of unchecked power. Additionally, in Marbury v. Madison, while the Court did assert its power of judicial review, it also established the principle of judicial restraint, indicating that the Court would not overstep its bounds and would defer to the other branches of government when appropriate.
Overall, while some of Yates's concerns about the Supreme Court were confirmed by the decisions in Chisholm v. Georgia and Marbury v. Madison, the circumstances surrounding those cases also demonstrated that there were mechanisms in place to prevent the Court from becoming too powerful and that it would exercise restraint in its use of judicial review.
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
The power of judicial review as exercised by courts in the United States refers to the authority of the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, to interpret the Constitution and to invalidate laws or governmental actions that are found to be unconstitutional. This power is not explicitly stated in the Constitution itself but was established by the landmark Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison in 1803, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Marshall.
Through judicial review, the courts can examine the actions of the legislative and executive branches of government and determine whether they are in accordance with the Constitution. If a law or executive action is deemed to conflict with the Constitution, the judiciary has the power to declare it void. This serves as a check and balance on the powers of the other branches of government, ensuring that no branch exceeds the authority granted to it by the Constitution.
Judicial review is a fundamental aspect of the constitutional system of government in the United States, as it helps to maintain the rule of law and protect individual rights against potential overreach by the government. It also ensures that the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, guiding the interpretation and application of laws across the country.
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
A) signer of the Declaration of independence
B) author of the Letters of Brutus
C) Alexander Hamilton's uncle
D) a Virginian
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
In Eakin v. Raub (1825), Justice John Bannister Gibson of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania made several compelling arguments against Chief Justice John Marshall's defense of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison (1803).
First, Gibson argued that the power of judicial review was not explicitly granted to the federal judiciary in the Constitution. He pointed out that the Constitution only mentions the power of judicial review in Article III, which outlines the jurisdiction of the federal courts, and does not explicitly grant the power to declare laws unconstitutional. Gibson contended that Marshall's interpretation of the Constitution to include the power of judicial review was a stretch and not supported by the text of the Constitution.
Second, Gibson criticized Marshall's assertion that the judiciary had the ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution. He argued that this would give the judiciary unchecked power and undermine the principle of separation of powers. Gibson believed that the power of judicial review should be shared among the three branches of government, as each branch has a duty to uphold the Constitution. He emphasized the importance of checks and balances in preventing any one branch from becoming too powerful.
Finally, Gibson questioned the wisdom of giving the federal judiciary the power to strike down laws passed by the elected representatives of the people. He argued that this could lead to an undemocratic and unaccountable judiciary making decisions that should be left to the democratic process. Gibson believed that the people's elected representatives were better suited to make laws and that the judiciary should only intervene in cases where a law clearly violated the Constitution.
Overall, Gibson's arguments against Marshall's defense of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison were persuasive and raised important questions about the proper role of the judiciary in interpreting and upholding the Constitution. While Marshall's decision in Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review, Gibson's criticisms highlighted the potential dangers of giving the judiciary too much power and the need for a balanced approach to constitutional interpretation.
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
A) Article I
B) Article IV
C) First Amendment
D) Fifth Amendment
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) Abraham Lincoln
B) Andrew Jackson
C) Andrew Johnson
D) Martin Van Buren
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) Alexander Hamilton
B) John Marshall
C) William Marbury
D) James Madison
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
Justice Gibson's belief that state court...View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
View Answer
A) that the Supreme Court would practice judicial review
B) that the Constitution protected the rights of the states
C) that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed
D) that judges could be trusted to decide cases correctly
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
Judicial review, as a major component of...View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
When it comes to interpreting the Consti...View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
Yes, I agree that the Dred Scott decisio...View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
The four approaches to constitutional in...View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
One way in which Marbury v. Madison and ...View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
In Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Just...View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
In Marbury v. Madison, several approache...View Answer
Correct Answer
Answered by ExamLex AI
View Answer
A) James Madison
B) John Jay
C) Benjamin Franklin
D) Alexander Hamilton
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) eminent domain
B) criminal law
C) civil rights
D) international relations
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
Showing 1 - 20 of 34
Related Exams