Length: 6 Pages 1551 Words

When the founding fathers of our country, and by that I mean the Federalists, were creating the system of government for America, they knew that a separation of power would be necessary to protect the American people from the evils of a monarchy or dictatorship. In doing this, they created the three branches of government; Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary. The plan was to have the Legislative make the laws, Executive enforce the laws, and the Judiciary interpret the laws, and it was Madison's system of "Checks and Balances" that would keep the three in check. No one branch would be able to exploit it's power without the scrutiny of one of the other branches, it seemed to be the perfect system. However, when the Federalists proposed this system of "Checks and Balances," they really didn't consider the Judiciary that much of a threat of power, and because it wasn't considered a policy making branch like the Executive and Legislative, it really wasn't thought of as part of that system. Basically, the Judiciary would make sure that no law was unfairly enforced on somebody, and anything else would merely be a bonus. The system of "Checks and Balances" would then be the Executive watching over the Legislative Continue...

More sample essays on Judiciary

    Reforming the federal judiciary
    Reforming the federal judiciary. .... They believed that the judiciary branch must be independent in order to achieve the balanced government. .... (994 4 )

    Can the Judiciary be Independent and Accountable ?
    Can the Judiciary be Independent and Accountable ? .... Unlike with Legislature, the people do not democratically elect the South African judiciary. .... (1123 4 )

    Is the Federal Judiciary Too Powerful?
    Is the Federal Judiciary Too Powerful? Is the Federal Judiciary Too Powerful? .... Therefore, today's federal judiciary is too powerful. .... (395 2 )

    ECHR and the British judiciary
    ECHR and the British judiciary. .... Overall the consensus seems to be that the judiciary should only be concerned with applying the law, not making it. .... (3235 13 )

    FEDERAL JUDICIARY PROCESS. The Federal Judiciary System The federal Judiciary is made up of a three-tiered court system. At the bottom .... (922 4 )

Countless decisions have been made where the use of the Constitution was not an option, and interpretation was the only means of deliberation. 279) The point here is that proportionately, the Judiciary yields as much power and policy making capabilities as any of the other two branches of government, and that the decisions made by the Supreme Court are in fact equal in stature to Congress passing a Bill into law. Because of this vagueness, the Judiciary branch has been able to blossom into a political force in our government. Countless other examples exist to back up this claim, but it would be entirely too monotonous to go through them all. Wade case, it succeeded in not only making abortion the right of a woman to decide on, but it also succeeded in setting forth a precedent of policy making in America. Of course federal representatives like the President do have term limits, but that is do mainly to the range of his constituency and power he has, and term limits only assure the protection from a dictatorship. To be more specific it would be Congress watching over the President and the President watching over Congress. It is the only way handle a situation that the Constitution does not address. The Supreme Court would render decisions based on the laws drafted into the Constitutions, and it would be asked to interpret them to the best of their ability. I sustain that the founders did not expect the Judiciary to become such a force in the policy making arena, but considering the way they set up the Constitution, I do not think they would be disappointed by the way the Judiciary has dealt with such controversial issues. So what is the Supreme Court supposed to do in these types of situations The answer of course is to take the matter into their own hands and interpret the law as THEY see fit. In conclusion, I feel we have shown that the Judiciary branch has evolved into an equally powerful branch of government as the Executive and Legislative. The system of "Checks and Balances" is well in tact, with the Judiciary Branch making sure that policy and legislation is fair and constitutional, and is shown through the decisions they have yielded. Because of this expectation to "interpret", the Supreme Court has been allowed to develop the power to change policy in America. The founders absolutely knew that one day the issue of slavery would have to be dealt with, but at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, when they are essentially trying to sell people on the idea, it would not be a very prudent thing to bring up.


The Judiciary and the Minority Community
The Judiciary and the Minority Community. According to a study published on line by The Judicial Counsel of California (2005), public (1247 5 )

Federalist Questions
Democracy Three Questions Question One (Federalist #78) In Federalist #78, the framers argued that the "judiciary" branch of the proposed US government would (1507 6 )

Concept of Judicial Activism
Concept of Judicial Activism. Americans have debated the proper role of the judiciary since the nation was founded in the 1780s. (1210 5 )

Alexander Hamilton
the issue of the mode of appointing judges, then the tenure by which they would serve in office, and then the division of the judiciary authority between the (1449 6 )

Politics and the Rule of Law The United States Co
Thus, the executive branch can limit the actions of the legislative branch and the judiciary can limit the actions of both the executive and the legislative. (862 3 )

Criminal Justice in South Korea Criminal Justice in South Korea
In 1948, with the founding of the Republic of Korea, the Judiciary and the courts were established as a separate and independent branch of the government (2133 9 )