How Do The Competing Theories Of Judicial Review Embodied In Justice Iredell's Opinion In Calder V. Bull And Justice Marshall's Opinion In Marbury V. Madison Reflect The Ongoing Tension Between The Structural And Historical Understandings Of Judicial Power In The Early American Republic, And What Implications Do These Differing Approaches Have For The Modern Doctrine Of Substantive Due Process?
The opinions in Calder v. Bull and Marbury v. Madison exemplify the historical tension between structural and historical understandings of judicial power, which significantly influences the modern doctrine of substantive due process.
-
Calder v. Bull (1798): Justice Iredell's dissent reflects a historical understanding of judicial power. He argued that the judiciary should not invalidate laws unless they explicitly contravened the Constitution, emphasizing the separation of powers and the limited role of the judiciary. This approach prioritizes original intent and historical context, cautioning against judicial overreach.
-
Marbury v. Madison (1803): Justice Marshall's opinion established judicial review, embodying a structural understanding of judicial power. He asserted the judiciary's role in interpreting the Constitution, ensuring that the judiciary acts as a check on the other branches, thereby upholding the rule of law.
These cases highlight the ongoing debate between a restrained judiciary (Iredell) and an active judiciary (Marshall). This tension impacts substantive due process:
-
Structural Approach (Marshall): Encourages judicial activism, where courts actively interpret the Constitution to evaluate the substance of laws. This can lead to significant rulings, such as in Lochner v. New York, but may also be criticized for judicial overreach.
-
Historical Approach (Iredell): Advocates judicial restraint, limiting the judiciary to clear constitutional violations. This approach is wary of substantive due process as it may lead to policy-making by the judiciary.
Implications for Modern Doctrine:
- A structural approach supports a more active judiciary, using substantive due process to shape law, potentially leading to controversial rulings.
- A historical approach emphasizes restraint, limiting substantive due process and aligning with originalist interpretations.
This debate continues to influence contemporary jurisprudence, reflecting broader discussions on judicial activism versus restraint and originalism versus living constitutionalism. The legacy of these early cases underscores the enduring balance the judiciary seeks between interpreting and shaping the law.