according to the constitution, this court would be the head of the judicial branch?
140420
According to a real literal reading of the Constitution, it would just be the "Court."  It refers to a supreme Court, not as the title "Supreme Court" but just to mean the highest court in the land as compared to the inferior courts.\n\nSo, the head of the Judicial Branch is "the Court."
1075105
The ultimate answer is "The State Constitution".
63514
The Judicial Branch. They are able to legislate from the bench by fiat and it is all but impossible to overrule their decisions. Recently they virtually eliminated the concept of private property and have decided in the past that the First Amendment can be severely restricted, just to name a few. The Constitution includes a procedure for amending the Constitution, but the U.S. Supreme Court has managed to bypass these controls time and again.\n\nThe Executive Branch and The Legislative Branch remain a good check and balance over each other, but the Judicial Branch has become a loose cannon.
756746
The Constitution defines the powers of each branch of government.  The three branches are the judicial, the legislative, and the executive.  If a topic isn't covered, then it doesn't exist.
798307
When you break down the actual power that is instilled in each branch, the answer is fairly obvious.\n\nIt seems as if the the folks who have answered think that it is clearly the Judicial Branch, but they couldn't be more wrong.  If anything, the Judicial Branch has the least amount of authority in the federal government. The Supreme Court, in fact, has only implied power. The High Court acquired the ability to deem a law unconstitutional via one of their own rulings in 1803 (Marbury vs, Madison); nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it authorize the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Court can only rule on cases brought before them by parties with a standing concern (i.e., individuals who are being directly and immediately affected by the law). If the case never reaches their courtroom, all the Supreme Court can do is sit idley by and watch from the sidelines. As far as the preconception that a Court ruling not being able to be overturned, that's not entirely accurate. The Congress, from time to time, can regulate and make exceptions to Supreme Court decisions, in particular where it pertains to the Court's appellate jurisdiction.\n\nYou would have to list the the Executive Branch as a pretender as well, considering that The Congress can supercede nearly every decision that the President can make. His veto powered is neutered by the fact that Congress can simply override and institute any law that the President strikes down, Presidential appointments are subject to approval by both Houses, and his job security is determined largley at their discretion.\n\nThe Legislative Branch, without a doubt, holds all the cards in this discussion.They write our laws, levy our taxes, declare our wars, confirm our Supreme Court Justices and Cabinet Officials, decide how the federal money is spent, amongst a plothera of other actionable powers. In addition to their great many capabilities, as it concerns this discussion, Congress has the authority to impeach and dismiss the occupants of the other 2 branches. This, above all else, makes the Legislative Branch, undoubtedly, the most powerful of the three.
558902
usually Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
250216
is a landmark case in United States law, the basis for the exercise of judicial review of Federal statutes by the United States Supreme Court as a constitutional power. The Court ruled that it had the power to declare void a statute which it considered repugnant to the United States Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall presided over the case, and used the case to legally establish the right of the judiciary—and in particular, the Supreme Court— to overrule the actions of coequal branches of government and thus laid the basis for the current power of the Supreme Court.
902816
D\nArticle Three describes the court system (the judicial branch), including the Supreme Court.
99465
The new Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court is John Roberts.
153512
Marbury v. Madison (1803)\nJust as George Washington helped shape the actual form that the executive branch would take, so the third chief justice, John Marshall, shaped the role that the courts would play.\n\nUnder the administrations of Washington and his successor, John Adams, only members of the ruling Federalist Party were appointed to the bench, and under the terms of the Constitution, they held office for life during "good behavior." Thus, when the opposing Republicans won the election of 1800, the Jeffersonians found that while they controlled the presidency and Congress, the Federalists still dominated the judiciary. One of the first acts of the new administration was to repeal the Judiciary Act of 1800, which had created a number of new judgeships. Although President Adams had attempted to fill the vacancies prior to the end of his term, a number of commissions had not been delivered, and one of the appointees, William Marbury, sued Secretary of State James Madison to force him to deliver his commission as a justice of the peace.\n\nThe new chief justice, John Marshall, understood that if the Court awarded Marbury a writ of mandamus (an order to force Madison to deliver the commission) the Jefferson administration would ignore it, and thus significantly weaken the authority of the courts. On the other hand, if the Court denied the writ, it might well appear that the justices had acted out of fear. Either case would be a denial of the basic principle of the supremacy of the law.\n\nMarshall's decision in this case has been hailed as a judicial tour de force. In essence, he declared that Madison should have delivered the commission to Marbury, but then held that the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus exceeded the authority allotted the Court under Article III of the Constitution, and was therefore null and void. Thus he was able to chastise the Jeffersonians and yet not create a situation in which a court order would be flouted.\n\nThe critical importance of Marbury is the assumption of several powers by the Supreme Court. One was the authority to declare acts of Congress, and by implication acts of the president, unconstitutional if they exceeded the powers granted by the Constitution. But even more important, the Court became the arbiter of the Constitution, the final authority on what the document meant. As such, the Supreme Court became in fact as well as in theory an equal partner in government, and it has played that role ever since.\n\nThe Court would not declare another act of Congress unconstitutional until 1857, and it has used that power sparingly. But through its role as arbiter of the Constitution, it has, especially in the twentieth century, been the chief agency for the expansion of individual rights. (See Part V.)\n\nFor further reading: George L. Haskins and Herbert A. Johnson, Foundations of Power: John Marshall, 1801-1815 (1981); Donald O. Dewey, Marshall v. Jefferson: The Political Background of Marbury v. Madison (1970).\n\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nMarbury v. Madison\nChief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court.\n\nAt the last term on the affidavits then read and filed with the clerk, a rule was granted in this case, requiring the Secretary of State to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, directing him to deliver to William Marbury his commission as a justice of the peace for the county of Washington, in the district of Columbia.\n\nNo cause has been shown, and the present motion is for a mandamus. The peculiar delicacy of this case, the novelty of some of its circumstances, and the real difficulty attending the points which occur in it, require a complete exposition of the principles on which the opinion to be given by the court is founded. . . .\n\nIn the order in which the court has viewed this subject, the following questions have bee
477764
According to the US Constitution there are no requirements to be a US Supreme Court Justice. Article 3 of the US Constitution states "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." States all vary with some requiring law school and a Bar Association while others require very little. \n\nIn Liberty,\nEric H. Smith\nwww.erichsmith.com
310525
Checks and Balances\n\nWhen you have three branches of the federal government, you need a government where one branch of government is constantly held in check by the other two branches.  Without a series of checks and balances, the president, congress, or the Supreme Court could take power and a representative democracy could turn slowly into a dictatorship or oligarchy.
598985
There is no order, that is why there is separation of powers, proposed originally by Baron de Montesque (or however you spell that).  There are three branches, executive, legislative, and judicial, that all have certain responsibilities and that all have to check on the other branches.  If you are not asking about the United States government, then I don't know.
722055
Well the "Supereme Court of the United States" can declare any law of the legislature (i.e. Congress) and executive (i.e. The President) null and void, if it is against the constitution. This power of the Supereme Court is called "Judicial Review". A famous case in this connection is the case of "Marbury vs Madision".
9130
Under the AOC there was only one branch of government, congress.  The main weaknesses of the AOC was there was no power to tax and there was no provision to force the states to do anything.  Our constitution provides for 3 branches-executive, judicial, and legislative each sharing power and providing a check and balance against the other branches.  Another concept of the constitution is Federalism-the sharing of power between the federal and state governments.  Finally the constitution has the Bill of Rights which guarantee individual liberties.
430601
Whoever the President chooses. Traditionally, it is the Chief Justice. In fact, it doesn't have to be a member of the supreme court, just a federal judge (Johnson was sworn in on the plane to Dallas following Kennedy's death by a Sarah T. Hughes, a federal judge).\n\nDuring the last inauguration, it was widely believed that Chief Justice Rehnquist would not be available due to his health, and there were plans to have Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas administer the oath.
47263
That the US Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter and interpreter of the Constitution, and whether or not an Act of Congress is permissible under the Constitution.