Judicial Review Is a Power of the Supreme Court - Assignment Example

Judicial Review: Judicial review is a power of the Supreme Court which izes the court to render decisions that nullifies actions of the executive and legislative branches of the government which violate the Constitution. In the exercise of this power, the court acts as the defender of both the constitution and the individual rights of the citizens. I agree that the Supreme Court should have the final say on what the Constitution means because it keeps the democratic principle of checks and balances working. Undoubtedly, the legislature and executive departments also have the expertise to interpret laws and the constitution, but both have vested interests and citizens do not stand a chance against the creator and the enforcer of the law. Only the Supreme Court can objectively assess the constitutionality of laws or government actions. Indictment vs Information Indictment and information both refer to the written instrument which formally charges an accused with an offense. Both are required to state with clarity the acts and circumstances that constitute the offense as defined by law. An indictment is returned only by a grand jury while in the case of information, the authority is with the Department of Justice. As such, an indictment states that “the grand jury charges” while an information begins with, "The United States of America, acting through its attorneys, charges". If I were charged with a criminal case, I would prefer an information over an indictment because in an information, I will have the chance of entering into a plea agreement with the prosecution. As an accused, I have the right to waive an indictment and opt for an information instead. Kinds of Proofs A reasonable suspicion is basically an educated guess used by the police to frisk or detain a person. If the police suspects that a person is about to commit or has committed a crime, he can stop, frisk and detain the person provided that his suspicion has some valid and reasonable grounds. And these grounds must be supported by facts or circumstances that point to such facts. A probable cause is the requirement in order to carry out a valid and legal arrest or search. Before issuing a search warrant or a warrant of arrest, the police must convince the judge that a probable cause exists that the person to be arrested has committed the crime or that the objects they are looking for are at the premises to be searched. In the case of warrantless arrest and search, the police officer may base the existence of probable cause on the reliable and available information that they have at that time. Preponderance of evidence is the kind of proof required to win a civil case. It is also called as the “51% of the evidence rule” which essentially means that whoever has more evidence to support his claims shall be the winner. Preponderance here refers to both the quantity and quality of evidence. Not only must a party present more evidence, he must also present items and information that have more value and weight than the other party. A clear and convincing proof refers to evidence that makes that person or panel hearing the case form a belief that the accused or the complainant’s allegations are true. Usually, a preponderance of clear and convincing evidence leads to the findings of guilt or innocence of the accused. Finally, proof beyond reasonable is the requirement in order to convict an accused. If there is an iota of doubt that perhaps the accused is innocent, then he is acquitted. U.S. v Dickerson In a democracy, there are three co-equal branches of government, namely, the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. The executive holds the police power of the state while the legislative has the power of the purse as the appropriating branch. The judiciary does not have any of these powers which directly affect each and every citizens of the country. In this light, I believe that it is the Supreme Court which can most safely be entrusted with both the power and the duty of protecting citizens against abuses of government power. Despite the fact that in the US v Dickerson case, the Supreme Court essentially slammed the door on Congress, it cannot be said that the Supreme Court has become the most powerful branch of government. All three branches are co-equal and created with the task of maintaining this balance of power. That is the essence of democracy and I believe that our country still has a living and working democratic system. Once this balance is tipped and one branch lords over the others, then it will not be good. In as much as the judiciary enjoys the reverence and respect accorded to it by the country, still, making it more powerful than the executive and the legislative branches will never be a good thing. Doing so would encourage the members of the judiciary into abusing its power because there will be no one to check on them. The Supreme Court exercises its power of judicial review with the end of protecting the rights of the citizens against the abuses of power by the government that has all the resources and mechanisms against the accused that only has himself, his lawyer and perhaps the truth. The landmark decision in the Dickerson case makes a clear statement that indeed no one is above the law, not even the federal government and its agencies. The Miranda warnings are embodied in our constitution and no law may be passed that removes such right. Hence, the exclusionary rule applies with full force and effect even to the federal courts and any piece of information that was obtained illegally and in violation of one’s constitutional rights may never be admitted in evidence against the accused. Both the Miranda warnings and the concomitant exclusionary rule find their legal basis from the constitution. And both cannot be overruled or changed by Congress in such a way that it violates the rights granted by the constitution. Any such attempt shall be struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional and declared null and void. The US Supreme Court is the guardian of both the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of America. However, noble as its duties are, the Supreme Court is not invincible; it is also subject to waiver by virtue of its changing composition. The current Supreme Court holds the position that the exclusionary rule is a court-made rule and not a command of the Constitution. I am convinced that this will not hold for long because it will not survive the logic of the Dickerson case which has already set the precedent jurisprudence. To say that the exclusionary rule is not embodied in the Constitution would mean that the government could pass a law that abolishes it. This cannot be done because doing so would violate the citizen’s constitutional rights, one of which is the Miranda warning. Therefore, in order to pass the test of democratic rights, all three branches of government must tread these paths with much care and caution. References: Dickerson V. United States (99-5525) 530 U.S. 428 (2000)  Grand Jury Manual. November 1991. Accessed on December 10, 2011. Available at http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/207021.htm Hughes, Charles Evans. The republic endures and this is the symbol of its faith. Accessed on December 10, 2011. Available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx National College for DUI Defense. Levels of Proof Instructions. Accessed on December 10, 2011. Available at http://www.ncdd.com/docs/LOP_instructions.pdf Read More