Modern Changes Of American Judicial Review System

In the history of American constitution and politics, jurisdiction has never been as "equal" as administration or legislation right from the beginning because the "equality" is just on the forms, until 1803 judicial review system was built by Judge John Marshall in the case of Marbury V. Madison—the Federation Court, especially the Supreme Court is the final judge of the federation or state legislation, administration legislation and conformity-with-constitution, judicial review stepped on the stage of American constitution and politics. However, judicial review with final constitution explanation right just could be found in Marbury V. Madison instead of being prescribed in American Constitution, in which Judge Marshall proclaimed that court possess the right of constitution review, the court achieved the important authority bit by bit, and became one of the tripartite. The naissance of judicial review system means the establishment of power sharing system and balance restrict system.The text is based on the history dimensionality of the Warren Court and classic cases, analyzing the establishment, excuses or existence and value of judicial review system, and judicial activism in American Constitution Politics to tease the modern changes of American judicial review system. From 1953 to 1969, the Warren Court was most radical in judicial activism in the history of American constitution politics. It overset the law foundation of racial segregation, promoted the development of Black civil rights movements, and broadened the extension of equality law protection; it consolidated the guarantee of free speech; it insisted the position of judicial activism, confined the government and congressional power and changed the unequal seat distribution of parliament; it maintained the democracy and freedom of civics; it initiated the "Miranda Rule", tightened the proceeding of criminal, intensified the lawsuit right and "detect privacy right" of civics, etc. Among them, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka greatly developed the category of judicial activism, and cast off past traditional bounds of judicial function, and made court the superior department of education organs in America. In Baker v. Carr, judge was involved in the real political thorns, which originated the concept of surpassing conventional jurisdiction. That means judge is the key inspector during the election procedure, and posses the executing legislation deputy in re-electorate if necessary. Griswold v. Connecticut "found" the constitution concept "privacy right", which have not been advanced in federal constitution. With classical cases, by the artifices of judicial activism, the Warrant Court changed American society course, improved the constitutional and political status of federal Supreme Court and became the revolutionary and just court, and originated the modern changes of judicial review system.Judicial review system is the blade of federal Supreme Court to Maintain Power Sharing System and Power Balance, which have experienced the following three phases: judicial independence, judicial review and judicial dominion. From the beginning—"no military right, no commercial right and no administrating right", the weakest of the tripartite to so-called "justice monarch"—federal court, especially the Supreme Court is the final judge of the Federation, State, administration and conformity-with-constitution. The Supreme Court of the US is the symbol of authority, it holds real power -"it can make the Congress, the president, chief executive and legislator bow and submit." But the judicial activism of the Warren Court was opposed intensely by those conventional keepers, and was bounded in doctrinal debates because American constitution and developing judicial review system is the base of all developments. The famous American jurisprudential scholar, visiting professor of New York University Bernard Schwartz pointed out withal: "What Americans contribute to humans is not skill, economy or culture achievements, but developing those ideas: law is the means to restrict power." Even he declared with prejudice: "in other countries, power is solved by armed forces; in America, power is decided by the army of lawyers." Such constitutional political culture, law-governing culture and law culture has been planted deeply in American social lives, and became the fertile soil for American constitution and politics movements.In addition to the introduction and epilogue, the paper possesses five parts for the body:The first chapter addresses on the dialectical relationship between judicial review and American constitutional politics; the origin and the establishment of judicial review authority settle the foundation of the logics of American Power Sharing System and Power Balance; and discusses the excuses of existence and value of the judicial review system in American constitutional politics from the multi-dimensionality of supreme law theory, distrust in democracy, power balance and stability of constitution.The second chapter explains the member compose and the background introduction of the Warren Court—the most revolutionary and motile court in the history of American Supreme Court.The third chapter is based on the classical cases of the Warren Court period to discuss the equal, liberty, and privacy rights sparked by the Warren Court, and to expatiate the main achievements of the Warren Court on judicial activism, which lay the foundation of the Supreme Court becoming the unique "people's court"The fourth chapter teases modern changes of American judicial review system from judicial independence of the US building days to judicial review establishment of Marshall time, and to the peak - judicial dominion of the Warren Court period. It stressed on that the Warren Court based on the nomological essential features of "footnote 4th" of Harran Stone. Judicial activism failed judicial restrict and the Warrant Court became the revolutionary and just court finally.The fifth chapter considers the modern judicial review changes of the US from the view of the Warren Court originating "Judicatory Monarch", and teases and evaluates the argumentative issues about "Democracy and the counter-majoritarian difficulty" and "Balance or Judicatory Monarch".