what is judicial review quizlet

1. Explainer: What is judicial review?
2. Judicial Review: Crash Course Government and Politics #21
3. What Is the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government? | History
4. Marbury v. Madison (1803) | Judicial Review Is Established
5. Judicial Decisions: Crash Course Government and Politics #22
6. Marbury v Madison Judicial Review and Supreme Court Cases Flip Video
7. AP Government UNIT 1 REVIEW [Everything You NEED to Know!]

Explainer: What is judicial review?

good afternoon my name is Christian Im,a barrister and among other areas I work,in public law in quests and public,inquiries and prison law Im also author,of the book the law in 60 seconds a,pocket guide to your rights and its,actually within that vein that it really,is a genuine honor to be doing this talk,today,um for constitutional law matters its,really important that the law is,explained in a way the members of the,public can understand not least because,that enables them to engage in debates,about often really important issues and,with that in mind its a pleasure to be,doing this talk today on the topic of,judicial review a topic I feel is very,important and the topic that given that,in recent years weve started to hear it,mentioned more and more on the news in,relation to political Affairs and the,like,um its a topic that its important that,the public,um know about so in this talk today I,plan to discuss what judicial review is,when it can be used what it can achieve,and Ill say from now as well as a sign,of the times whilst I will make every,effort to look directly into the webcam,I of course have notes to this side to,ensure that I can convey all of the,information I want to convey so if at,any point I look away that is the sole,reason,so to start with,um what is judicial review now a very,helpful starting point is actually the,judiciarys very own website,um which states as follows judicial,review is a type of Court proceeding in,which a judge reviews the lawfulness of,a decision or action made by a public,body in other words judicial reviews are,a challenge to the way in which a,decision has been made rather than the,Rights and Wrongs of the conclusion,reached its not really concerned with,the conclusions of that process and,whether those were right as long as the,right procedures have been followed the,court will not the courts will not,substitute what it thinks is the correct,decision and there is a little more to,it but thats a very helpful place to,start so the first question you might,have is well what is a public body,bullet bodies are bodies that provide,services or carry out functions that are,in the public interest so,the NHS government departments local,authorities police all are examples of,public bodies and its helpful to see a,practical example of this so so lets,take the NHS if the NHS make a decision,about you or that affects you but you,believe that the NHS didnt follow the,law when they made the decision or you,perhaps in some way feel that they,didnt follow the correct procedures,having heard what Ive said so far you,might think well surely judicial review,is the the most appropriate Way Forward,but its important I tell you that,judicial review is what we call a remedy,of Last Resort,so that means that lets say youre,wanting to go to court to make a claim,for judicial review,before youll be able to get anywhere,the court will want to see that there,was no suitable alternative remedy,available to you,so therefore continuing with our NHS,example the courts are very likely going,to want to see that you first made a,complaint to the NHS about your issue,and that youve gone through their,internal appeal and review procedures,too and if that didnt resolve the issue,the court will want to see that you went,to the relevant Ombudsman to see if if,they could resolve the issue,now where the NHS is concerned the,relevant Ombudsman is the Parliamentary,and Health Service Ombudsman and they,make final decisions on complaints that,have not been resolved by the NHS in,England but there are numerous different,types of ombudsmen depending on the,context and and the body that you have,issue with so as a barrister I do a lot,of work that relates to prisons and the,prison and probation Ombudsman PPO is,the relevant Ombudsman in in that,situation now,notwithstanding this its important for,me to stress that if it wouldnt have,been reasonable for you to First make a,complaint to the relevant body the court,may be understanding and accepting of,the reasons,um or as to why it was important you,went straight to for judicial review and,a good example of that is is this lets,say theres an individual from a,different country whos been living in,the UK but doesnt have the legal,permission to be here under such efforts,are being made by the authorities to,remove that individual now making a,complaint to the UK border agency under,the agencys complaints procedure,thats unlikely to prevent the,individual who doesnt have permission,to be here from being removed in those,situations a court is perhaps more,likely to be persuaded that going,straight for a judicial review made,sense,another example of where an alternative,to judicial review may not be,appropriate might be a situation where,even if you were to win in that,alternative process it wouldnt be able,to provide you with the outcome that,youre looking for in a way that perhaps,judicial review could and that neatly,brings us on to the next part of this,short talk which is well what can come,about from judicial review what other,potential outcomes or to speak,um more legally what are the available,remedies and there are six remedies that,are normally available in Jr and Ill,read those all out and then Ill provide,an explanation as to what they mean so,we have question orders we have,mandatory orders we have prohibiting,orders we have declarations,injunctions and then finally damages and,damages are only applied in very various,situations so for the purposes of this,short talk I want to speak on damages,but to start with quashing orders quash,isnt a word we really use in everyday,language I quite like the word,personally,um but actually its funny a university,lecture lecturer taught us to to think,of question orders,um as squashing orders they squash,something they get rid of something so,in essence it invalidates the decision,made by a public body meaning that it,has no legal effect so lets say that a,body make a decision stating that you,arent entitled to a certain service if,thats quashed by the court that,decision by the public body effectively,ceases to exist and the public body,would then need to make their decision,again but this time doing it properly,applying the correct legal test or,following the correct procedure,next we have prohibiting orders now,these are similar to quashing mode is,mentioned above the key difference is,that they instead prohibit a public body,from taking a future action so they,therefore act at an earlier stage than a,question order,we then have mandatory orders now,mandatory does compel the public body to,undertake a certain action they might,for example oblige a local authority to,carry out a Care Act assessment where,the court feels that the local Authority,might otherwise not do so,and we then have injunctions and the,reality is that injunctions share,similarities with the two orders I,mentioned just a moment ago but in the,injunction prevents a certain thing,being done or can compel something to be,done next we have declarations now a,declaration is what it says on the tin,its where the court States or declare,what the law is in a situation or rule,on the right to the parties appearing,before it and a declaration doesnt,actually Force any party to do anything,but they do offer Clarity on situations,and they can be very helpful for lawyers,like me who will read the wording of,declarations made by judges in the past,to better understand how things such as,um perhaps the proper way or to,understand things such as how,legislation is to be interpreted that,where it might be a bit unclear,um and you know when I then go to court,fighting for my clients on a similar,issue I can inform the judge Im in,front of at the Declaration made by a,previous,in an office in an effort to assist and,guide the court,while on this topic its worth talking,about,um the Declaration of incompatibility,um and in short if despite best efforts,primary legislation cant be read in a,way that is comp

Judicial Review: Crash Course Government and Politics #21

Hi. Im Craig, and this is Crash Course Government and Politics, and today were going to talk,about the most important case the Supreme Court ever decided ever. No, Stan, not Youngstown,Sheet and Tube Company vs. Sawyer. Although, that is one of my favorites. Loves me some,sheet and tube. And no, its not Ex parte Quirin. Although I do love me some inept Nazi,spies and submarines. And no, it is not Miller v. California. Get your mind out of the gutter,Stan. We could play this game all day, but this episode is about judicial review: the,most important power of the Supreme Court and where it came from. Dont look so disappointed.,This is cool!,[Theme Music],When you think of the Supreme Court, the first thing you think about, other than those comfy,robes, is the power to declare laws unconstitutional. The term for this awesome power, the main,check that the court has on both the legislative and executive branches, is judicial review.,Technically, judicial review is the power of the judiciary to examine and invalidate,actions undertaken by the legislative and executive branches of both the federal and state governments.,Its not the power to review lower court decisions. Thats appellate jurisdiction. Most people,think of judicial review as declaring laws unconstitutional, and that definition is okay.,The legal purist will quibble with you since judicial review applies to more than just laws.,Appellate courts, both state and federal, engage in some form of judicial review, but,were concerned here with the federal courts especially the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court,has the power to review the following: One, Congressional laws a.k.a. statutes! Statutes.,Since judicial review is a form of appellate activity, it involves upholding or affirming,the validity of laws, or denying it, invalidating the law in question. You might think that,the Supreme Court does this a lot, but it doesnt and historically it almost never happened,before the twentieth century. If the court were always striking down congressional statutes,,it would be hard for people to know which laws to follow, and youll remember that one,of the main things that courts do is create expectations and predictability. For instance,,you could predict that I would eventually be punching this eagle!,Another reason why they dont invalidate laws often is that if the Court frequently overruled,Congress, the Court would seem too political and people would stop trusting its judgment.,If the Court has any power at all, it largely stems from its prestige and reputation for,being impartial and above politics. No one has any problems with the Supreme Court decisions, at all.,Two, the Court can also overturn state actions which include the laws passed by state legislatures,and the activities of state executive bureaus, usually the police.,The power to review and overturn states comes from the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution.,Most of the time that the Supreme Court extends civil rights, it comes out of a state action.,A good example is Brown vs. Board of Education where the Court struck down the idea of separate,accommodations being equal in the context of state public schools.,Three, the Court can review the actions of federal bureaucratic agencies. Although, we,usually defer to the bureaucrats expertise if the action is consistent with the intent,of the legislature which the Court usually finds it is. The Court almost never strikes,down Congressional delegation of power to the executive. Although, you might think that it should.,The fourth area where the Court exercises judicial review is over Presidential actions.,The Court tends to defer to the President, especially in the area of national security.,The classic example of the Court overturning executive action happened in U.S. vs. Nixon,where the Justices denied the Presidents claim of executive privilege and forced him,to turn over his recordings relating to the Watergate scandal. More recently, the Court placed,limits on the Presidents authority to deny habeas corpus to suspected terrorists in Rasul vs. Bush.,So, the Supremacy Clause gives the Court the authority to rule on state laws, but where,exactly in the Constitution does the power of judicial review come from? Trick question!,Its not there, go look ahead, look. Ill wait. See, not there. Wow, you went through,that whole thing really quickly. Fast reader.,The crazy thing is that the power of judicial review comes from the Court itself.,How? Lets go to the Thought Bubble.,The Supreme Court granted itself the power of judicial review in the case of Marbury,vs. Madison. You really should read the decision because its a brilliant piece of politics.,The upshot of the case was that Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Court had the,power to review, uphold, and strike down executive actions pursuant to the Judiciary Act of 1789,,and in doing this, to strike down part of that federal law. How he got there was pretty cool.,So, Marbury was an official that President John Adams, at the very end of his term, appointed,to the position of Justice of the Peace. When Marbury went to get his official commission,certifying that he could start his job, James Madison, who was Secretary of State, refused,to give it to him. So, Marbury did what any self-respecting petitioner would do, he went,to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus that would force Madison to give Marbury his job.,This is what he was supposed to do according to the Judiciary Act of 1789.,What Marshall did was brilliant! He ruled that yes, Marbury had a right to the commission,but that the Supreme Court could not grant his writ because the law directing them to,do so was unconstitutional. This is brilliant for two reasons. First, by the time the time,the case came before the Court, Thomas Jefferson was President. Those of you who remember Crash,Course U.S. History will recall that that less handsome man told you that Jefferson,was a Democratic Republican while Adams, Marbury, and even Marshall were all Federalists.,By ruling against his own party, Marshall made a decision that was favorable to Jefferson,and thus, likely to be supported.,The second move was even cooler. Marshalls ruling took the power of writs of mandamus,away from the Court, making it look weaker, while at the same time giving the Court the,power to declare the law that had granted it the mandamus power in the first place unconstitutional.,So by weakening the Court in this instance, like Daredevil going blind as a kid, Marshall,made it much stronger for the future, like Daredevil getting stronger in the future.,Thanks, Thought Bubble!,So thats where judicial review comes from, but that still leaves many questions. A big,question is, why has this ruling stuck around and hasnt been overturned by other laws or,later court decisions? Another question is, is judicial review a violation of separation of powers?,Some say that its judges making laws and thus an anti-democratic usurpation of the legislatures power.,Lets talk about this rulings longevity first. Remember when I said last time that the Supreme,Court rulings are binding in lower courts? You dont remember do ya? You were sleepin. Wake up!,Well, in general, Supreme Court precedents are binding on future Supreme Courts too because,of the principle of stare decisis, which is Latin for “let the decision stand.” This doesnt,mean that future Supreme Courts can never overturn the decisions of prior Courts, its,just that they try very hard to not do it.,This idea of precedent is one way that judges can be said to make laws. Appellate decisions,are like common law in that they are binding on future courts and constrain their decisions,and because they dont have to be grounded in a specific statute.,Other courts have to follow the higher courts interpretation of the law, and this interpretation,has the effect of redefining the law without actually rewriting the statute.,On the other hand, appellate decisions are technically not common la

More: on the basis of sex review nytimes

What Is the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government? | History

– There are three branches,of government in the United States:,legislative, executive,,and judicial.,The judicial branch is made up,of the Supreme Court and other federal,courts whose function is to rule,on all matters related,to the law and the Constitution.,The Supreme Court has enormous power that,has continued to grow since its inception,in 1789. [MUSIC PLAYING],,The first version of the court,had only six justices.,In 1869, that number grew to nine,and has remained that way ever since.,Unlike the other branches,of government, justices,arent elected.,The president nominates Supreme,Court members, as well as,federal courts of appeals and district,court judges.,The Senate then has the responsibility,to vote and confirm or reject,the appointment.,Justices dont have term limits.,Theyre able to serve until they die,,retire, or are removed,by Congress through impeachment,and conviction.,The Constitution itself doesnt give,any specific requirements,for who can and cannot be a justice.,In fact, federal law doesnt even,require a federal judge,to be an attorney.,But traditionally, most of them,have worked as lawyers.,[MUSIC PLAYING],,And when it comes to the power,the Supreme Court wields,,the Constitution is again, pretty vague.,Section 1 identifies the Supreme Court,as a third branch of government,and it empowers the court,to decide cases.,Thats pretty much it.,Section 2 touches on jurisdiction.,And section 3 spells out,regulations around treason cases.,There is no mention of interpreting,the constitutionality of the laws,,the very thing the Supreme Court,is famous for today.,So how did the Supreme Court,get that power?,The answer is an 1803 Supreme,Court case, known as Marbury,versus Madison.,The case is a little complicated,,but basically Chief Justice John,Marshall ruled that the law Marbury was,using to make his case was,unconstitutional.,Marshalls ruling established that it,was the United States Supreme Courts,responsibility to interpret,the constitutionality of laws.,And so the courts mandate,of judicial review was born.,,And as the highest court,in the country, decisions,made by the Supreme Court are final.,That is, unless a future Supreme,Court finds that decision,unconstitutional.,One well-known example of this,was the Supreme Courts ruling,in the case of Brown versus Board,of Education in 1954, which,ruled racial segregation,in public schools unconstitutional.,This overruled the Supreme Courts,1896 decision in Plessy,versus Ferguson, which had legally,protected segregation as,separate but equal.,When the Supreme Court makes,a ruling, all other courts must follow,this precedent.,Unlike the president or Congress,,courts only act if someone,brings forward a valid case.,And unlike the legislative and,executive branches, the judicial branch,operates outside of elections,and voter input.,But it nonetheless has,a profound effect on our daily lives,,by evaluating the constitutionality,of laws to keep our government in check.,

More: hawkeye review

Marbury v. Madison (1803) | Judicial Review Is Established

© 2016 State Bar of Georgia

Judicial Decisions: Crash Course Government and Politics #22

Craig: Hello, Im Craig, and this is Crash Course Government and Politics, and today,were gonna look at the Supreme Court from a different angle. Were gonna try to get,inside the justices heads. Bwahahahahah!,Not literally, obviously, but were gonna look at the factors that influence the way,they decide cases, other than the structure of the court system. So were pretty far away,from the Constitution here and straddling the nebulous world of government, politics, and dare I say it, history.,[Theme Music],Justices, especially on the Supreme Court, are supposed to be independent, but that doesnt,mean they make their decisions in a vacuum. They make them in an office, just like most people who work.,More importantly, theyre influenced by a number of factors other than the case thats in front of them.,In terms of their role in government, justices might be influenced by Congress, because they,know that, unless the case involves the Constitution directly, congress can respond to a decision,overturning a law by passing a new law.,Once justices have been selected and confirmed, the President has minimal effect on judicial,decisions although hes somewhat influential on lower court justices who might one day,want to be on the Supreme Court. So you lower court justices, you be nice to that prezzy, OK?,Knowing that the President get to make the call on who gets to be a justice with the,help of the Senate of course, federal judges are more likely to make rulings that are more,likely to get them considered for the court.,Since the president only serves eight years maximum, though, its hard for judges to know,who will be President when a vacancy in the court opens up, so the President isnt much,of a factor. Much more influential on justices is history, which works in two ways. First,,the principles of precedent and stare decisis constrain the possible decisions that justices,can make. Second, and more historical in the sense we think of history, justices know that,their decisions will be studied by generations of historians, and lawyers, and YouTube viewers,,and they are very well aware that some decisions, like Dred Scott, Brown V. Board, and Roe V.,Wade, can have an enormous impact on American history. And now the historical stakes are,even higher, because they know that their decisions will be talked about by a bearded,balding man on YouTube forever.,Judges may behave strategically and consider the way that their decisions will be implemented,by the executive branch or how a part of one decision will lay the foundation for a change,in the law in a decision later. Although it isnt supposed to matter, judges are influenced,by their political ideology, whether theyre liberal or conservative or possibly by their,party affiliation, whether theyre Democrats or Republicans or the Tea Party or the Green,Party or theyre party animals, like Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Party affiliation and political,ideology are certainly important in the selection process — its pretty rare that a Democratic,president selects a Republican judge to be on the Supreme Court, especially these days,,although sometimes it happens that a justice turns out to be more or less conservative,or liberal than the president thought. Former Justice David Souter is a good example of,a judge appointed by a Republican who turned out to be much more to the liking of Democrats.,Finally, and perhaps most important, judges are influenced by their philosophical orientation,,by this I mean their judicial philosophy, not whether theyre existentialists or logical,positivists. While Im sure that there are many judicial philosophies out there, the,two which matter most, at least in terms of the way commentators talk about the Court,,are judicial activism and judicial restraint. Lets not show any restraint in actively going,to the Thought Bubble right now.,Judicial activism is the idea that the Court should act as an instrument of policy, making,it much more like the other two branches of government. Judicial activists tend to look,beyond the text of the Constitution and statutes, instead choose to consider the broader social,implications of the decisions they render. Activist judges are supposedly eager to overturn,Congressional legislation to further their policy goals, and theyre often accused by,opponents of making law from the bench. Judicial activism is often associated with liberal,or Democratic justices, but its not that simple.,Judicial restraint, as the name implies, is the idea that judges should pay close attention,to the precedent when they make their decisions, and that any changes that they make to the,law should be incremental. They are the judicial tortoises to the activist hares. Judicial,restraint is sometimes confused with originalism, the idea that any new law should be interpreted,in the light of the Constitution as it was written in 1787. Basically a What Would James,Madison Do? orientation. Although advocates of judicial restraint often rely on the Constitutions,text, its later precedent that restrains them more than the Constitution does. Judicial,restraint is often equated with conservatism, which makes sense, as conservatives generally,are against change, but as with judicial activism, the equivalence isnt perfect.,The two different philosophies are each associated with different historical moments. The high,tide of judicial activism occurred between the 50s and the mid-70s, when Earl Warren,and Warren Burger were the Chief Justices. During this time, the Court made important,decisions: expanding civil rights, voting rights, the right to privacy, and the rights,of people accused of crimes. From the 1980s through the early 2000s, the Court led by,William Rehnquist was known for its judicial restraint, dialing back civil rights, affirmative,action, and desegregation programs and attempting to rein in the power of the national government,and devolve some power back to the states. Thanks, Thought Bubble.,So a minute ago, I said that activism wasnt the same as political liberalism and restraint,wasnt the same as conservatism. Let me try to explain what I meant. Mainly, the issue,here is the claim that conservative justices practice judicial restraint. If youve been,paying attention to the Court recently, youll see that this isnt always the case. The current,Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John Roberts has five generally conservative justices and,four that are usually considered liberal. The conservatives were all appointed by Republican,presidents and the liberals by Democratic presidents. These conservative justices have,been pretty activist in some of their decisions, however. For example, the Citizens United,case broke with previous precedent and allowed much more campaign fundraising than prior,court decisions had, which is something that political conservatives wanted. Recently,,the Roberts court invalidated parts of the Voting Rights Act, which had been passed originally,in 1965 and renewed by Congress in 2010. Heres why this is problematic: one of the core tenets,of judicial restraint is that courts are not supposed to overturn the decisions of a democratically-elected,Congress in order to make policy, unless Congress has passed laws that are clearly unconstitutional.,It can work the other way, too. While the Warren court was generally pretty activist,and stocked with politically liberal justices, Justice Breyer, whos usually considered politically,liberal and was appointed by a Democrat, believes that judicial change should be incremental,and doesnt want to make decisions that will cause sweeping changes. So hes exercising judicial restraint.,So, Im going to stop here, otherwise were going to fall into the trap of talking politics,,and I dont want to do that with him around, cause hes always trying to sue American,Eagle Apparel for violating his right of publicity, and I think its fine, theyve had that trademark,for quite some time! Im sorry, but you dont really have those rights, youre no

Marbury v Madison Judicial Review and Supreme Court Cases Flip Video

okay so lets get much more in depth,into the judicial branch and,looking at supreme court in their cases,and their actual powers and writs,now in the landmark case marbury versus,madison at 1803,i cant emphasize enough how important,this case is the supreme court ruled,that it had the power to declare,congressional and executive actions,unconstitutional the case itself is kind,of,interesting um in the sense that the,ruling itself appeared to weaken,some of the uh courts powers up front,but in the,end it led to the power of whats called,judicial review,so now the the,supreme court can review lower court,cases,and congressional legislation like bills,and laws,or actions and they can also look at,executive actions executive orders and,what the president,has done are treaties constitutional any,of that stuff can be declared,unconstitutional because of the mulberry,versus madison case,and this is established in 1803 very,shortly after the united states,ratified the constitution in 1788 and,1787.,under judicial review the supreme court,can determine a con,congressional or presidential action is,unconstitutional,we also said theres presidential,executive,orders anything if it goes against the,constitution of course,it can be challenged now just to be,clear because theres some confusion,things do not go directly to the courts,or the supreme court,they have to be taken there so people,say well yeah but,i mean people are breaking these laws,and blah blah blah this is happening the,president did this,it has to be taken to court,in order for the supreme court to review,it through judicial review,um there are some exceptions like,elections and issues like an election,maybe but i dont want to confuse you,where it could go and be reviewed under,uh,if theres theres some technical things,but for almost the,for all intensive purposes we want to,understand that it has to be challenged,by lawyers or groups or,it could even be a party they have to,sue the president,or attack a bill and say its,unconstitutional until that point,that is law of the land if its passed,by the legislator,and then if the president is doing,something and then its not being,challenged,uh hes probably going to get away with,unconstitutionality,now the term judicial review is not in,the constitution its actually not in,there,and were going to learn where it comes,from but theres nothing in the,constitution under article,3 about the supreme court remember in,article 3 it only really talks about the,supreme court it doesnt establish to,other courts,legislative branch has to establish to,other courts and the president chooses,it tells us how the president chooses,the supreme court and its its,its um theyre confirmed by the senate,but it doesnt describe the judicial,review idea,supreme court was very weak originally,in the constitution,okay now where is it actually found is,in federalist 78,judicial review is actually a concept,thats really um,termed by alexander hamilton alexandra,hamilton,argues in federalist 78 that the,judicial branch will be the least,powerful branch okay,justice will he argues that the justices,will serve for life with good behavior,so we get in this idea of good behavior,serving for life,okay he also argues that in the supreme,court responsibilities declared,congressional and presidential actions,unconstitutional,he established this idea of judicial,review he says the supreme court has a,responsibility,to uphold the constitution above all,above the president above the,legislative branch,and he establishes the checks and,balances in this document federalist 78,but its not actually in the,constitution and we can look at that,document,so i want you to understand the big idea,is,in federalist paper 78 came true,judicial review because of marber versus,madison is in,fact the um the the big idea,that has happened today the supreme,court can declare this stuff,unconstitutional,and the second thing is judicial,justices will serve for life for good,behavior,he won that argument he did not win with,president presidents have to be,reelected every four years,but he had won that argument in in uh 70,and in frederick 70 he argued the,president should be for life with good,behavior,once he gets elected thats not how it,works though presidents are limited,because of uh,but not because of the main constitution,because of the articles that were added,the bill,afterwards the amendment the,constitution after fdr limits,terms we have were called term limits,okay so you have to think about if,theyre looking at this theyre really,going through the information whats the,best idea that it describes,this is the power of the court to review,decisions and change outcomes of,decision on lower courts,so when theyre looking at this stuff,and theyre reviewing it and then,theyre,theyre doing what is that original,jurisdiction,is that judicial scrutiny is that,appellate appellate jurisdiction or is,that federal jurisdiction based on what,we know,think through this,okay and thats judicial scrutiny,judicial scrutiny is scrutinizing,looking through uh previous cases and,changing the outcomes,okay so looking at precedent,seeing that theres something,unconstitutional or and,on a lower court and then they,scrutinize it they over they over,uh they override lower courts supreme,court is the highest court of the land,the federal supreme court just like,missouri supreme court is the highest,law,court in missouri now some other rules,that come out,that are very important cases that are,established on the supreme court and,well get were much more in depth in,the bill of rights where this stuff,comes from,but its in the constitution in the bill,of rights is this idea of,the exclusionary rule okay,so its not actually written in the bill,of rights but its interpreted to be,there as a civil liberty,if its in the bill of rights its a,civil liberty the exclusionary rule is,this,this legal rule based on constitutional,law saying that the evidence collected,or analyzed is violated of defendants,constitutional rights,its some and um sometimes its,inadmissible,for a criminal prosecution in court on,the court of law okay,so if evidence is obtained,unconstitutionally according to the,supreme court it cannot,its inadmissible which means it cannot,be used,for criminal persecution so as a,criminal,courts again so and this is based on a,famous case well get into,but so for example you can see the,police are kicking in the door,uh without a warrant okay and weve,talked about,if theyre kicking the door and theyre,searching your house for drugs without a,warrant and you have not given them,permission to enter the premises,that should be covered on an,exclusionary rule so if they do find,drugs in the house,you that should be thrown out and cant,be used against you in a court of law,okay,now there is one exception uh and the,big exception is in fact,uh we know under the patriot act if,youre suspected of terrorism,they cant kick into doors and the the,fourth amendment does not fourth,amendment does not apply under this law,and as of now the supreme court has not,overruled and said thats,unconstitutional in the case of,terrorism and the argument is,the executive branch needs to move,quickly in the case of terrorism they,have time to get warrants,but if you think what a warrant is is a,warrant is a check and balance,in itself the judges have to give the,police,or the fbi whatever law uh branch of the,law,permission to enter the premise or,permission to go into your car,okay and under the exclusionary rule if,they dont have a warrant,that information that evidence is thrown,out also well get into the more,technical side of this is,if they do get a warrant and they are,going into your house or somebodys,house,and they said that the warrant this is,what poor police work unfortunately can,have,serious consequences is they say theyre,looking for,drugs and theyre only looking for drugs,and then they find a bunch of illegal,weapons,you cannot use the f

AP Government UNIT 1 REVIEW [Everything You NEED to Know!]

hey there and welcome to heimlers,history ap government edition in this,video im going to review everything you,need to know for ap government unit 1.,so in this video im going to cover the,foundations of american democracy,how we got our constitution and how,federalism works so if youre ready to,get them brain cows milked with them,baby,lets get to it before we jump into this,i should mention that this unit review,is part of my ap government ultimate,review,packet not all the unit reviews are,going to be here on youtube but theyre,all in that packet and this packet has,everything you need to get an a in your,class and a five on your exam in may,including practice questions for every,unit essential questions for the course,and,answers to check your work and full,length practice exams when youre ready,for the exam so you know if thats,something youre into then get your,clicky finger out and have a look,so lets begin with the foundations of,american democracy and the first thing,you,absolutely need to know is the,enlightenment so basically this was a,european intellectual movement in the,18th century that had,all kinds of influence on how the,framers of our constitution understood,the principles of government so lets,get nice and cozy with a few of these,enlightenment thinkers and their ideas,first was the idea of natural rights and,this was basically the idea that people,are born with certain rights that are,given to them by their creator and,thats important because that means,those rights were not given to them by a,monarch and therefore could not be taken,away by a monarch and related to this,enlightenment thinkers argued for a,theoretical state of nature which comes,before any kind of government and in,that state humans are free,and these ideas were exceedingly,influential on the framers of the,constitution the second enlightenment,idea you need to know and technically,this is two ideas but you know theyre,very closely related so whatever its,popular sovereignty and the social,contract the idea here is that by nature,the power to govern is in the hands of,the people thats the popular,sovereignty part and that in order to,protect their natural rights people,willingly give some of that power away,to a government,and thats the social contract part that,means the state is the servant of the,people and not the other way around with,respect to the social contract the idea,was that if the government,violates the agreement it becomes a,tyrannical turd then the peoples duty,is to overthrow that government and,switch it out for you know a non-turd,government the third enlightenment idea,you need to know is republicanism so in,a republican form of government people,elect leaders to represent them and,create laws in the public interest,additionally to keep this government,from becoming tyrannical power ought to,be separated between three branches the,executive the legislative and the,judicial and there are many other,enlightenment ideas that influence the,framers of the constitution but those,are the major ones you need to know and,the sum of all of them taken together is,basically this that the best form of,government is a limited government which,by definition is a government that is,prevented from tyranny through a system,of checks and balances,and the distribution of power among,several acting members,now hopefully as i went through some of,those ideas they sounded kind of,familiar maybe not because you knew,which thinkers were responsible for them,or even if you knew the names but,because you have heard these ideas,expressed in two of our foundational,documents,the declaration of independence and the,united states constitution the,declaration of independence provides the,foundation for popular sovereignty the,social contract and natural rights and,the enlightenment influence isnt that,hard to spot we hold these truths to be,self-evident that all men are created,equal that they are endowed by their,creator with certain unalienable rights,that among these are life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness and,there you have a clear statement of,natural rights although thomas jefferson,the declarations author substitute a,pursuit of happiness for john lockes,natural right of life liberty and,property cause lets be honest big daddy,government aint got nearly enough hooch,to go throwing around tracks of land to,everybody like oprah you get some land,you get some land,you get some black anyway move on a,little and you see the social,contract in popular sovereignty that to,secure these rights governments are,instituted among men deriving their just,powers from the consent of the governed,so you see the social contract like we,establish governments to protect our,natural rights and then you see popular,sovereignty,that government gets its power from the,peoples consent and then the,constitution provides a blueprint for,republicanism and the separation of,powers which ill talk more about later,for now lets shift and talk about the,three main kinds of democracy and how,they are present in our system today,youve got pluralist,elite and participatory participatory,democracy emphasizes broad participation,in the political process by most,if not all members of a society,pluralist democracy is a model in which,groups of people associate with interest,groups who then compete to influence,public policy this model provides the,people with a,voice not really individually but in,chunks elite democracy emphasizes more,limited participation in policy making,on the assumption that government is,complicated and therefore the most,educated people need to run it now dont,think of the us,as embodying only one of these models,each of them exists depending on where,you look for example participatory,democracy shows up quite a bit more on,local manifestations of government like,town halls and small municipalities also,on a larger scale participatory,democracy is present at the state level,in initiatives and referenda which are,ways that people can vote directly on,legislation and keep their,representatives accountable pluralist,democracy on the other hand shows up in,the many interest groups that exist in,the us and let me just give you a couple,of examples that youve probably heard,of number one the naacp which works for,civil rights and number two the national,rifle association,which works to promote second amendment,rights groups like these give,people a voice and the bigger ones like,i just mentioned wield a,disproportionate amount of power over,the political process,elite democracy was weakened by,progressive error reforms like direct,election of senators but it still shows,up in the electoral college where,citizens get to vote but,technically theyre just voting for the,electors who really vote for the,president now we can also see the,tension between these three models and,three of our foundational documents,number one the constitution number two,federalist 10 and number three brutus,one in the constitution you can see,elite democracy in the fact that elected,representatives legislate on behalf of,their people then you can see pluralist,democracy and the first amendments,freedom of assembly allowing political,parties and interest groups to flourish,and you can see participatory democracy,in things like the first amendments,freedom of speech and press that allow,people to express their political,opinions and also amendments that,expanded voting rights like the 15th and,the 19th amendments prohibiting race,and sex as barriers to voting now this,tension between the three forms of,democracy is at the heart of the,argument between federalist ten and,brutus one brutus,broad participatory model and feared the,curtailment of personal liberties,reflected in a larger republic like the,united states on the other hand,federalists 10 argue that with so many,competing factions in a large republic,liberty would be upheld by their,competition and thats an example of,pluralist democracy okay now si