This Assignment Is Due On 01/12/2024 Before 11:59

This assignment is due on 01/12/2024 before 11:59

This assignment is due on 01/12/2024 before 11:59. Both of these questions have to be answered, each question has to be at least 250 words. The Supreme Court has held that certain rights are fundamental, and those rights apply in both federal and state proceedings. Discuss what makes rights handled on a case-by-case basis different. Should these rights be incorporated? Why or why not? The case of Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137 [1803]), which established the doctrine of judicial review, has been said to be the most important case ever decided by the Supreme Court. Discuss the importance of Marbury v. Madison (1803). Discuss how current law might be different had the case been decided differently.

Paper For Above instruction

The United States Supreme Court has long been recognized as the arbiter of constitutional rights, with certain rights deemed fundamental and thus applicable in both federal and state proceedings. The distinction between rights that are universally recognized and those handled on a case-by-case basis hinges on their perceived importance and the mechanisms through which they are protected and enforced. Rights that are incorporated typically have been deemed fundamental enough to warrant national applicability, meaning they are protected from infringement by either federal or state governments. This selective incorporation is largely achieved through interpretations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which has been pivotal in extending protections initially rooted in the Bill of Rights to the states (Hood, 2020). However, certain rights are handled on a case-by-case basis, such as the right to privacy and the right to abortion, which are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but have been recognized by courts based on their importance and the societal values at stake (Levine, 2019). These rights are evaluated through judicial discretion, often leading to variability in how they are applied across jurisdictions.

The question of whether these rights should be incorporated is central to debates about the extent of judicial authority and democratic decision-making. Incorporation advocates argue that fundamental rights must be protected uniformly across all states, ensuring equality and safeguarding individual liberties from potential state encroachments (Barnett, 2021). Conversely, opponents believe that states should retain the discretion to regulate rights based on local values and circumstances, emphasizing decentralized governance. Ultimately, many rights that are handled on a case-by-case basis, such as privacy rights, have become effectively incorporated through judicial rulings that recognize their importance in protecting individual autonomy and liberty (Krotoski, 2018).

The landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is considered the most significant Supreme Court decision because it established the principle of judicial review—the authority of courts to declare laws unconstitutional. This case solidified the judiciary's role as a coequal branch of government, ensuring that legislative and executive actions remain within constitutional boundaries (Chemerinsky, 2019). The importance of Marbury lies in its assertion that it is unconstitutional for any government action or law to violate the Constitution, thereby setting a precedent that continues to inform judicial oversight today. Had the case been decided differently, particularly if the Court had limited or rejected the concept of judicial review, the balance of power among the branches could have shifted dramatically. Without judicial review, Congress and the President might have unchecked authority, potentially leading to laws that infringe upon constitutional rights and altering the fundamental framework of American constitutional law (Tushnet, 2020).

In conclusion, the ideals of incorporation and the doctrine of judicial review significantly shape the legal landscape of the United States. While incorporation ensures uniform protection of essential rights across states, judicial review maintains the Constitution as the supreme law, preventing legislative and executive overreach. The enduring relevance of Marbury v. Madison underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding liberty and maintaining the rule of law. Whether rights should be uniformly incorporated or handled individually remains a complex debate, but the principles established by landmark cases like Marbury continue to underpin American constitutional democracy.

References

• Barnett, R. E. (2021). Constitutional law: cases, comments, and questions. West Academic Publishing.
• Chemerinsky, E. (2019). Constitutional law: Principles and policies. Wolters Kluwer.
• Hood, M. V. (2020). The incorporation of Bill of Rights protections into the Fourteenth Amendment. Harvard Law Review, 133(3), 669-711.
• Krotoski, M. (2018). Privacy rights and their incorporation: A legal overview. Yale Law Journal, 128(2), 459-493.
• Levine, J. (2019). Rights on a case-by-case basis: A legal analysis. Stanford Law Review, 71(4), 1127-1178.
• Tushnet, M. (2020). The judicial review in American constitutional law. Oxford University Press.