Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Judicial interpretation is the way in which the judiciary construes the law, particularly constitutional documents, legislation and frequently used vocabulary.This is an important issue in some common law jurisdictions such as the United States, Australia and Canada, because the supreme courts of those nations can overturn laws made by their legislatures via a process called judicial review.
In Chapter 4, Story enters into a discourse on "who is the final judge, or interpreter, in Constitutional controversies." In Chapter 5, Story gives his nineteen rules of interpretation of the Constitution. Chapters 6 through 43 deal with all the provisions of the original Constitution of the United States.
The need for a comprehensive guide to the interpretation of the Constitution was apparent to Congress from early in the 20th century. In 1911, the Senate Manual contained the United States Constitution and Amendments with citations to decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court concerning constitutional law. [4]
Early in its history, in Marbury v.Madison (1803) and Fletcher v. Peck (1810), the Supreme Court of the United States declared that the judicial power granted to it by Article III of the United States Constitution included the power of judicial review, to consider challenges to the constitutionality of a State or Federal law.
In U.S. constitutional law, rational basis review is the normal standard of review that courts apply when considering constitutional questions, including due process or equal protection questions under the Fifth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment.
Therefore, the Supreme Court has the final say in matters involving federal law, including constitutional interpretation, and can overrule decisions by state courts. In McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819), the Supreme Court reviewed a tax levied by Maryland on the federally incorporated Bank of the United States. The Court ...
The Supreme Court upheld this practice in 2014, ruling that a president can only make a recess appointment when the Senate is out of session for 10 days or longer. ... The Constitution gives the ...
The history of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause follows a broad arc, beginning with approximately 100 years of little attention, then taking on a relatively narrow view of the governmental restrictions required under the clause, growing into a much broader view in the 1960s, and later again receding.