The Power of the Supreme Court

In the Constitution of the United States of America, Article III, explains the Powers of the Judiciary, specifically the United States Supreme Court. Within these three sections, the Founding Fathers gave every specific rule for the Supreme Court to follow. Yet, even with these specific rules, the Constitution was not always implicated about the exact functions of how the rules were to be enforced when the Executive and Legislative Branches Openly Violated the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution, regardless, does not grant the Power of Judicial Review upon the Supreme Court of the United States.
There are two points in where the Constitution may give the Courts a form of Judicial Review that slowly evolved into form that we saw it take during Marbury v. Madison, one in Article III, section 2 and the other in the Supremacy Clause Article VI of the Constitution (pg. 36). Yet even these sections in the Constitution do not grant any implicit or explicated Power of Judicial Review as we know of it in Marbury V. Madison. Even taking these issues into account, the Supreme Court does not hold any supreme power over either of the other two Branches of the Federal Government. It is more likely that it is the weakest of the three branches because it is the one that has the potential to wield the most power.
In Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, there is some unique language that has the potential to give the Supreme Court a different, weaker form of Judicial Review. The Constitution, while setting the specifics of Jurisdiction for the Supreme Court of the United States, states that “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under authority;”(pg 494). Even within the Article of the Constitution that specifically explains the power of the Judiciary, and the section that explains the jurisdiction, there is no explicated granting of Power of Judicial Review to the Judiciary. Understandably there is a debate on whether the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to hear cases of Law, and potentially, could evolve into the case of its logical conclusion, that a Law may be considered Unconstitutional. Yet that is a pale shadow of the power that Chief Justice Marshall explained in his decision of Marbury V. Madison. This power is more likely Legeslative Review. It grants the Supreme Court the ablitlity to strike down a law of the Congress as unconstitutional. The Court, however, holds no ability to police, regulate, or in any mater, interrupt with the functions of the Legislative and Executive Branch, as explained by Chief Justice Marshall.
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.”(pg 495) This is the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, found in Article VI of the Constitution. This could possibly be interpreted that the Supreme Court could rule any state law void. Yet again, that is a pale comparison against the full power of Judicial Review claimed by Chief Justice Marshall. Here, the Supreme Court can strike down a State’s law only if it directly violates one of the powers of the Federal Constitution or an act by Congress. Yet the Constitution gives the states a remedy for this type of situation, in Article III, Section 2, in which it Grants the Supreme Court Jurisdiction on any cases where a State may be party to. So regardless of how the Supremacy Clause may be read, it must be taken into account along with the protection provided to the States in Article III.
Yes, the Supreme Court should be able to claim that a law is Unconstitutional, in the sense that it violated the personal rights of an individual or a State that is not explicitly removed by the Constitution, or the Law exceeds its power explicably given by the Constitution. It should be able to, as well, when brought up to the Court, strike down laws that are in direct contrast to the Constitution. The Constitution does give the Supreme Court some guides into when it may claim a State or Federal law unconstitutional, but only in the case of “Law and Equity” and only if the claim is based in, some form a Constitutional matter.
Yet the Supreme Court should never be able to dictate to any branch of government, whether its actions are Constitutional or not. The claim that a law is unconstitutional should be let only in the most extreme of circumstances, and only against the legislative branches of the government. Or in the most extreme case, when the executive breaches one of the powers of the constitution and refuses to obey congressional acts, such as explained in the Constitution.
Many claim that the Supreme Court, as part of its role in government, was intrinsically granted the Power of Judicial Review. It is often sited that the in the spirit of Checks and Balances, that the Supreme Court must be able to defend the Constitution for all enemies, in both the Legislative and Executive Branches of the Government. Yet, as shown, there is no explicated instructions given to the Supreme Court for Judicial Review as explained by Chief Justice Marshal.
The Constitution of the United States, as intended by the Founders, did not limit the powers of the individual, it, instead had very specific language limiting the powers of the Federal Government instead. The Tenth Amendment is the most blatant form of the restrictive powers of the Constitution towards the Federal Government. It is this language, in Article III and in the rest of the Constitution, which makes the greatest case against the notion that the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the Power of Judicial Review.
So, what role should the Supreme Court play? When the Constitution was established, a notion of checks and balances where infused into the historical document. Each branch was to monitor and control one branch while it was monitored by the third, in order to establish a system of government that could be controlled by the people at any given time. The Judiciary was the third and weakest of the three branches, and for good reason. The Founders of this great country knew that the people would be swayed by the ebbs and flows of radical ideas and mob rule. If this where to happen during an election year, then the framework for this country could be ruined. That is why only once, every four years, do the three elected houses come up for election together, and the senate, only a third of its members. The framers, in order to establish some constancy, decided to grant judgeships for life. Yet that posed a serious problem, these men, who sat on the highest court on the land, and where a part of the Checks and Balances system, did not directly represent the will of the People.
The Supreme Court has a crucial role to play in American Government. Granted the power of review of the Legislative Acts of Congress, as explained earlier, it was the final protector of the Constitution, in the case that both the Legislative and Executive Branch failed in their duty to protect and enforce the Constitution.
Yet, with its role as a check on the legislative, and Justices being appointed for life, the Supreme Court was deliberately shorted in the Constitution. Article III of the Constitution explicitly gives the court its original and applet jurisdiction, lightly touches on the power of Legislative Review, and explains how it will function. The rest of Article three explains that the Congress will establish the lower courts.
Why is the establishment of lower courts left to Congress? This is part of the Checks and Balances system. Since the Supreme Court can anole an act of Congress if it is a violation of the Constitution, The Supreme Court, along with the rest of the Judiciary, could potentially be the true lawmakers of the United States. The Framers decided to avoid this by letting both Congress and the President get involve in the creation and appointment of the Supreme Court and the lesser courts. This helps restrain the raw power that the Supreme Court could wield against the States, Federal Government and the people.
Supreme Court in my opinion has a very simple, powerful position in the American Constitutional system. It is the Branch of Government that keeps a watchful eye on the Congress, making sure that the laws passed are within the powers granted by the Constitution. It is the final Court in the cases of Treason, impartial and unbiased. It is the final protector of the Constitution, but is not, under any stretch, the Constitution of the United States of America.