Constitutional Interpretation and Judicial Review
Judicial Review is a power conferred to a court to review a section of regulation, statute, treaty, or constitution in a bid to check if it is constitutionality and consistent with the parent statute, treaty, or constitution. The power and role of the Supreme Court to exercise judicial review is not directly indicated in the U.S. constitution but is implied for the structure, particular provisions, and history in constitutional implementation. Through the judicial review, Supreme Court can decide that organs such as congress have acted ultra vires or unconstitutional and; thus, declare them invalid for being unconstitutional. With the separation of powers, judicial review acts as a check mechanism of the acts and omissions of other government organs (Harr, Hess, & Orthmann, 2011).
Supreme Court in pursuit and delivery of justice should expand the interpretation of the constitution to deliver justice in the case-by-case scenario. The Supreme Court is rested, therefore, with the inherent duty to interpret the constitution and to determine how it is applied in any given case. Issues, such as terrorism, which are adverse to human rights, are handled through interpretation of the supreme law to guard human life. Legislative enactments, which touch on matters such as legalizing abortion, are contrary to the constitutional provision of the right to life and; thus, the judicial power of review could be utilized to declare such legislative unit’s decision as unconstitutional. Regulation of services such as the Internet should abide by the provisions of the law, which works against the constitution, works against the will of the people; thus, void. The courts should continue exercising the power of review and interpretation of the constitution for better delivery of justice while offering protection from excessive exercise of legislative power (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2012).
The court is under a judicial system, is supposed to work on its own. Every human being believes in the court’s decision to provide justice to all, especially the disadvantaged groups. External influence from other government departments may influence the judicial process. Nevertheless, the judiciary should be willing to listen to the advice and views of the state so that a well-coordinated approach is adopted in administering justice.
The court is headed and served by many opinionated legal individuals, resulting in varied judgments. Often, the court does not speak in one voice; it can at times be a legal advisor to the state or work towards self-gain. One judge will make a ruling based on a personal point of view as well as private consultation from their close allies (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2012). Although there is a well-structured system in the judiciary, moral judgments vary.
Court processes are mostly influenced by political and other environmental factors. This is advantageous to the famous and rulers because they can easily pull through. Such people easily suggest bonds and bails. Corruption, on the other hand, also influences court functions and processes globally. Most of the lawyers take court processes like a business whereby, they aim at material things from their clients (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2012). Selfish motives destroy the faith and trust that citizens have entrusted to the judicial system. This has been witnessed in many cases. For instance, courts of appeal and the Supreme Courts may act in an informed capacity, but money and power can ruin an intelligent decision. Therefore, the court rarely acts on its own (Harr, Hess, & Orthmann, 2011).
References
Harr, S., Hess, K., and Orthmann, C. (2011). Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Neubauer, W., & Meinhold, S. (2012). Judicial process: Law, courts, and politics in the United States. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.