Judicial Review: Crash Course Government and Politics #21
video description
Date: 2022-04-04
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
John
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.
reply
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.
reply
MasterWooten
For most people judicial review means that they're going to court to have an adverse decision taken against them by a statutory decision maker reviewed by a court usually at the same level of government to see in that decision maker's decision was correct vis a vis the laws or regulations governing their actions or if they were reasonable where the decision maker is granted deference based on some sort of expertise and based on the facts if the case.
reply
For most people judicial review means that they're going to court to have an adverse decision taken against them by a statutory decision maker reviewed by a court usually at the same level of government to see in that decision maker's decision was correct vis a vis the laws or regulations governing their actions or if they were reasonable where the decision maker is granted deference based on some sort of expertise and based on the facts if the case.
reply
James
Just watched this (Dec. 2019, you have an error to correct. Miranda Rights do not have to be given to 'everyone arrested', it must be given before interrogating a person in custody. If I have not arrested someone and ask a question or I arrest someone after witnessing or finding direct evidence of a crime, no Miranda must be given if I don't interrogate the person.
reply
Just watched this (Dec. 2019, you have an error to correct. Miranda Rights do not have to be given to 'everyone arrested', it must be given before interrogating a person in custody. If I have not arrested someone and ask a question or I arrest someone after witnessing or finding direct evidence of a crime, no Miranda must be given if I don't interrogate the person.
reply
Panagiotis
For you that dare limit me unjustly don-t ever forget this moment it cost you everything you have no honor no truth no future the living in leadership shall die in there sin this is the word and the word is life and true unmoved will not be tempted tempt me further loose repentance.
reply
For you that dare limit me unjustly don-t ever forget this moment it cost you everything you have no honor no truth no future the living in leadership shall die in there sin this is the word and the word is life and true unmoved will not be tempted tempt me further loose repentance.
reply
Mr
This guys credibility is shot. I-m a Police Officer and when I heard him say that the police are supposed to read Miranda to -anyone- they arrest. that-s just not true, at all. You would know this if you understood Miranda and criminal procedure.
reply
This guys credibility is shot. I-m a Police Officer and when I heard him say that the police are supposed to read Miranda to -anyone- they arrest. that-s just not true, at all. You would know this if you understood Miranda and criminal procedure.
reply
Walt
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
reply
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
reply
Harrison4Ever
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
reply
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
reply
Anthony
Good information, but speaks way too quickly. If he spoke at a more -normal- speed I'd be able to absorb the information versus flying through bullet point nd examples.
reply
Good information, but speaks way too quickly. If he spoke at a more -normal- speed I'd be able to absorb the information versus flying through bullet point nd examples.
reply
Charles
Watches Crash Course as a -dip of the toe- before I read Cornell Law's version of this explanation.
My, -for dummies, - senses are strong lol.
reply
Watches Crash Course as a -dip of the toe- before I read Cornell Law's version of this explanation.
My, -for dummies, - senses are strong lol.
reply
kenneth
Yes they have changed over time, mostly to slowly erode the rights of the people, especially in the 20th and 21st century.
reply
Yes they have changed over time, mostly to slowly erode the rights of the people, especially in the 20th and 21st century.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
