How would one distinguish successful from unsuccessful assertions of judicial power? What is it that puts Marbury in one class and Dred Scott in another?
In the Marbury case, the Supreme Court threw out the suit because it was based on an unconstitutional statute.
Check these sites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott
Distinguishing successful from unsuccessful assertions of judicial power can be a complex task. However, analyzing specific cases like Marbury v. Madison and Dred Scott v. Sandford can shed light on this distinction. Let's break it down step by step:
1. Understand the Context: To assess the success or failure of judicial power, it is crucial to consider the historical, political, and social context surrounding the cases. Understanding the legal and societal climate at the time provides valuable insight.
2. Legal Reasoning and Interpretation: The quality of legal reasoning and interpretation used by the judges is a fundamental element in evaluating the success of judicial assertions. Assess whether the arguments rely on established legal principles, constitutional interpretation, and logical reasoning or if they seem flawed or inconsistent.
3. Impact on Constitutional Interpretation: The impact of a judicial ruling on the interpretation and application of the constitution is another crucial factor. A successful assertion of judicial power is one that reinforces and advances constitutional principles and rights, while an unsuccessful one could be seen as flawed, contradictory, or regressive in its interpretation.
4. Consensus and Precedence: Considering the consensus among legal scholars and the subsequent impact on legal precedent is important. A successful assertion of judicial power tends to generate broad consensus and guide future cases, whereas an unsuccessful one may face criticism or be subsequently overturned or limited by subsequent court decisions.
Now, let's focus on the specific cases you mentioned:
- Marbury v. Madison (1803): This case is considered a successful assertion of judicial power due to several reasons. Firstly, Chief Justice John Marshall's majority opinion established the principle of judicial review, which empowered the Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional. This interpretation of the Constitution enhanced the Court's role and provided a vital check on congressional and executive power. The ruling was based on legal reasoning and established a precedent that has been consistently followed since.
- Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857): This case is often cited as an unsuccessful assertion of judicial power due to its deeply flawed reasoning and grave moral consequences. The Supreme Court's majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, ruled that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, were not U.S. citizens and therefore lacked standing to sue in federal court. This decision further exacerbated the nation's divisions over slavery, contradicted principles of equality and liberty, and directly contributed to the escalation of tensions leading to the Civil War.
In summary, distinguishing successful from unsuccessful assertions of judicial power involves assessing contextual factors, legal reasoning, impact on constitutional interpretation, consensus among legal scholars, and subsequent precedent. The cases of Marbury v. Madison and Dred Scott v. Sandford demonstrate how different interpretations, reasoning, and impact can place them in distinct categories.