Difference between revisions of "Cooper v. Aaron"
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | ''Cooper v. Aaron'', 358 U.S. 1 (1958), was | + | '''''Cooper v. Aaron''''', 358 U.S. 1 (1958), was a landmark case in which the [[Little Rock]] school board tried to stop [[school desegregation]]. In deciding this, the [[Warren Court]] established the notion of [[Judicial Supremacy]].<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=IylaDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT735 The Gloog Revolution - "It's the Lawyers Stupid!": Get Lawyers Out of Government]</ref> |
| + | |||
| + | ==Background== | ||
| + | In its ruling, the court asserted that the federal judiciary and the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] is the "supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution" because of one single line that was cited out of context from the [[Marbury v. Madison]] opinion. In the opinion of ''Marbury'', Justice Marshall wrote that ''It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is''. ''Aaron'' went far beyond the Court's previous assertion in ''Marbury'' however, that they merely had ''authority'' to exposit the Constitution. Rather, it asserted the Supreme Court had authority over the other two branches of government, which was unnecessary to the resolution of the dispute in that case. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Misquoting Marshall== | ||
| + | In setting up the premise for judicial supremacy, the justices committed precedential abuse by asserting that: | ||
| + | |||
| + | <blockquote>This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=ejyJ21wIJe0C&pg=PA47 American Politicians Confront the Court: Opposition Politics and Changing Responses to Judicial Power]</ref></blockquote> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Unfortunately, '''Marbury v. Madison''' makes no such declaration anywhere in its text.<ref>[http://cf.heritage.org/initiatives/rule-of-law/judicial-activism/cases/cooper-v-aaron Judicial Activism, Cooper v. Aaron], [[Heritage Foundation]]</ref> | ||
| + | ==See also== | ||
| + | *[[Essay:25 Worst Court Decisions]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | {{reflist|1}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==External links== | ||
| + | * [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=358&page=1 Text of decision] | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Law]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Judicial Activism]] | ||
| + | [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
Latest revision as of 16:56, December 13, 2020
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), was a landmark case in which the Little Rock school board tried to stop school desegregation. In deciding this, the Warren Court established the notion of Judicial Supremacy.[1]
Background
In its ruling, the court asserted that the federal judiciary and the U.S. Supreme Court is the "supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution" because of one single line that was cited out of context from the Marbury v. Madison opinion. In the opinion of Marbury, Justice Marshall wrote that It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Aaron went far beyond the Court's previous assertion in Marbury however, that they merely had authority to exposit the Constitution. Rather, it asserted the Supreme Court had authority over the other two branches of government, which was unnecessary to the resolution of the dispute in that case.
Misquoting Marshall
In setting up the premise for judicial supremacy, the justices committed precedential abuse by asserting that:
This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system.[2]
Unfortunately, Marbury v. Madison makes no such declaration anywhere in its text.[3]