Is this a task best handled by the courts?
The task of deciding whether the laws enacted by the government are consistent with the rules in the constitution is best handled by the courts. The nature of the court system in the United States allows those sitting judges, especially in higher offices, to make decisions that are outside the bounds of party politics (Marbury V. Madison 137). This allows the decisions to remain within the framework of the law.
Would your answer be different depending on whether the judges in such courts were elected or appointed for life?
If judges were elected then they would not function as well in this role. This is because they would then be given the incentive to make decisions that will get them elected rather than what they believe is best. The most effective aspect of judicial decisions is that they are able to be made without fear of public reprisal.
Can you think of a better alternative?
There is probably no situation in which there could be a better alternative. If it were possible to establish a committee within the executive and legislative branches that effectively oversee the treatment of the constitution it would be beneficial but it would also be problematic to ensure that such bodies acted independently from those that they would be overseeing.
Should the doctrine as set forth in Marbury v. Madison be followed today?
It seems to be an important role of the courts to watch over the decisions made by the other branches of government. The doctrine set forth in Marbury v. Madison should be followed so that they are held to higher standards. There is no better source of protection for the constitution than the court systems.
Works Cited
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
