Judicial Review: Crash Course Government and Politics #21

Spread The Viralist



Today, Craig Benzine is going to tell you about the Supreme Court’s most important case, Marbury v. Madison, and how the court granted itself the power of judicial review. Judicial review is the power to examine and invalidate actions of the legislative and executive branches. It happens at both the state and federal court levels, but today we’re going to focus primarily on the court at the top – the Supreme Court of the United States. Now it’s important to remember that the court has granted itself these powers and they aren’t found within the Constitution, but as with the executive and legislative branches, the courts rely heavily on implied powers to get stuff done.

Produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios: http://youtube.com/pbsdigitalstudios

Support is provided by Voqal: http://www.voqal.org

All Flickr.com images are licensed under Creative Commons by Attribution 2.0

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode

Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook – http://www.facebook.com/YouTubeCrashCourse
Twitter – http://www.twitter.com/TheCrashCourse
Tumblr – http://thecrashcourse.tumblr.com
Support Crash Course on Patreon: http://patreon.com/crashcourse

CC Kids: http://www.youtube.com/crashcoursekids

source

Recommended For You

About the Author: CrashCourse

22 Comments

  1. Judicial Review did not exist prior to Marbury v Madison in 1803. The founding fathers were well aware of the concept of judicial review and did NOT include it in the constitution. The supreme court bided its time and made a political decision to establish judicial review when they thought they could get away with it. Jefferson and others saw though judicial review. They believed it placed too much power in the judiciary and threw checks and balances out of whack. They rightfully criticized it but the decision held. The court initially treated the power of judicial review as a nuclear option and never again used it to invalidate a law passed by congress until Dred Scott in 1857. That’s right. You know how the modern court strikes down laws all time time? Back in the early 1800’s the first and second cases were separated by 54 YEARS!!! The reason is because the early court knew the concept of judicial review was problematic and therefore tenuous. They rightfully feared the other two branches reasserting their power and overturning judicial review. Perhaps with something equally absurd, like legislative review or executive review. Could that still happen? Maybe. Or perhaps the other two branches will just stack the court with fifteen justices, as was proposed by several presidential candidates earlier this year.

  2. This is so obnoxiously distracting that it is impossible to absorb the fundamental historical truth of what it is designed to educate us about. I've learned nothing

  3. Crash course oh that’s easy all of them are crooked and the biggest reason why our great country is in the bad shape it is in right now by us the people relying on any of them

Comments are closed.