Suppose that our elected officials in our United States Congress, in order to help authorities manage prison security, passed a law stating that federal prisoners cannot have visiting time with former inmates. Further suppose that a group of inmates filed suit claiming the restrictions infringe on their First Amendment rights of association and violate the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Should appointed judges in the federal courts be able to overrule an act of Congress on constitutional grounds?

I think that federal judges should be able to overrule an act of Congress if it is, in fact, unconstitutional. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Secondly, the job of the judicial branch of our government is to interpret the laws. This is an important check on both the legislative and the executive branches. Finally, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137(1803) established judicial review as an important part of the federal courts' duties 200 years ago.

Article VI of our Constitution clearly states that it is the supreme law of the land. It further says that all executive and judicial officers "shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution." It is important that we follow the Constitution with no exceptions, because that is what all our laws are based on - the foundation which must remain strong. If we are not very clear about exactly what it says, little by little, it will change and erode and not be preserved for future generations. In reference to the question asked, our Constitution, as supreme law of the land, grants specific rights to all individuals as citizens.

Judges having the power to interpret and overrule laws that are not constitutional is a vital part of our system of checks and balances. If Congress is able to create and pass laws without being subject to judicial review as to their constitutionality, the balance of power would be uneven. The judicial branch must be an equal and independent branch of the federal government.

Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the Supreme Court opinion on Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Even though they agreed that injustice had been done, they did not uphold the Congressional act that would have rectified the situation, because that would have been unconstitutional. In the same way in the situation described above, even though the law passed by Congress would have helped with prison security, it did infringe on the First Amendment rights of people living under that Constitution.

The next big decision concerning Judicial Review was when Dred Scott was not given his freedom. Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393(1856). It didn't seem right or fair but the Supreme Court made its decision based on the Constitution. In the same way as the situation above, it was not the popular situation but the Supreme Court had to hold the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.