Pros And Cons Of Judicial Review :: Government Judicial Review Essays

Pros and Cons of Judicial ReviewJudicial Review is the power given to coercive court justices in which ajudge has the power to reason whether a law is unconstitutional or not. ChiefJustice John Marshall initiated the Supreme chat ups right to translate the organisation in 1803 following the case of Marbury Vs. Madison, in which hedeclared the Supreme Court as the sole interpreters of personalityal law. Thisis one of the sole purposes of the Supreme Court of the unify States. ManyHistorical thinkers would find some difficulty in imagining a organization set upto limit the power of itself,but others would argue that this variant of governmentbest works for the people, and not against them. The treatment of theConstitution by the Supreme Court as a living document that is able to betranslated differently over time for the good of the people has as many skepticsas it does supporters. But, if we do not allow the Supreme Court to translatethe 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 thegreatest political thinkers of our time, we would find that individuals such asPlato, Niccolo Machiavelli, and John Locke, would plowshare extremely differentviews 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 ourpresent day governmental setup of the Supreme Court to be the ideal group todeal with the United States situation. Plato matte that government should be runby 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 mostenlightened thinkers of our day. They are chosen to gull moral decisions aboutlaws made by others in our society, and decide whether or not the laws we makeare in the best interest of our nation as a whole. Plato knew that withi n anypolitical State their would be corruption, to stop the corruption Plato feltthat the philosopher kings would best rule because they would not indulgethemselves in a corrupt society. They only believed in the truth, and justicethat government is supposed to protect its people with.Although Plato would not totally agree with the Democratic structure ofour government, I believe that he would chose for our society, a state that isruled by a similar group to that of our Supreme Court because, the members of