Explain the concept of judicial review. how did the supreme court get the power of judicial review? did the u. s. constitution specifically designate the power of judicial review to the supreme court? how can one request the supreme court to accept and review a legal case? how does supreme court decide which case to accept for review? what does it mean "to have a standing" in a legal case? what happens if the supreme court's decision results in a tie? which national issue/debate do you think the u. s. supreme court needs to review in the near future?

The Supreme Court of the United States spends much, if not most, of its time on a task which is not delegated to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. That task is: Hearing cases wherein the constitutionality of a law or regulation is challenged. The Supreme Court's nine Justices attempt to sort out what is, and what is not constitutional. This process is known as Judicial Review. But the states, in drafting the Constitution, did not delegate such a power to the Supreme Court, or to any branch of the government.

Since the constitution does not give this power to the court, you might wonder how it came to be that the court assumed this responsibility. The answer is that the court just started doing it and no one has put a stop to it. This assumption of power took place first in 1794 when the Supreme Court declared an act of congress to be unconstitutional, but went largely unnoticed until the landmark case of Marbury v Madison in 1803. Marbury is significant less for the issue that it settled (between Marbury and Madison) than for the fact that Chief Justice John Marshall used Marbury to provide a rationale for judicial review. Since then, the idea that the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of constitutionality issues has become so ingrained that most people incorrectly believe that the Constitution granted this power to the federal judiciary.The Supreme Court received this power after the famous Marbury vs. Madison case in 1803. Accordingly, James Madison (Thomas Jefferson's Secretary of State) refused to seat William Marbury as a District of Columbia justice of the peace. The Supreme Court ruled that it was wrong of Jefferson to use his executive authority to prevent the seating of a judge.

bismarck believed in using force

is the correct answer!

du boi was considered a radical because he wanted the immediate end for segregation. the biggest different between him and booker t. washington is that, even though washington believed that segregation should be considered illegal, he did not believe at all that a law was needed to keep blacks away from whites and that this would be something natural (to have the races apart) for a long time until society adjusted, while du boi believe that agitation was the only way to end segregation.