As long as man has been on this earth there have been conflicts or disputes that needed to be resolved by a third party. By definition, a court is a.) a place where legal justice is administered b.) a judicial tribunal duly constituted for the hearing and determination of cases. The recognized existence of even primitive courts implies a relatively high degree of social organization and the need for systematic resolution of disputes based on established customs and rules of conduct. Courts have been set up to hear disputes between two or more parties. In medieval European history a Curiae was a court, or group of persons, who attended to a ruler at any given time for disputes of social, political or judicial purposes were resolved. It's composition and functions varied considerably from time to time and from country

The Justice Department has recently urged the Supreme Court to reaffirm its 1966 Miranda Decision, arguing that Congress lacked authority to pass a 1968 law intended to reverse Miranda but never enforced.

the police station, from consulting with him. At his trial, the State, over his objection, introduced the confession against him. We held that the statements thus made were constitutionally inadmissible.

As you can see in the three examples given, the Supreme Court has not authored new laws, changed or repealed them. The rulings they have handed down have affected many individuals. The interpretation of the laws and amendments they have reviewed, have dictated the way the police departments, other law enforcement agencies and courts do business, thus in my opinion acting as legislators in some form.

With the last statement being said, through out the years the Supreme Court has decided cases or made statements of opinion on cases that have set precedent on how the law was to be interpreted. The legislative branch of the government was set up to make, change or repeal laws, and not the judiciary branch of the government. As the Supreme Court has presided over cases, they have been called upon to interpret a specific law and clarify its intent. By doing so, they may alter the way that the executive branches of the government have been enforcing the law. Below is a summary of some cases that have made significant changes to the way a law was viewed, or clarified an interpretation of that law, thereby in essence "making" or "changing" a law.

In Marshall's decision 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 issues writs of mandamus exceeded the authority allotted the Court under Article III of the Constitution, and was therefore null and void. He was able to chastise the administration and not created a situation where the court would not respected. With this decision the Supreme Court became arbiter of the Constitution and clearly defined that they where the final authority of what the document meant. This showed that in fact the supreme Court became an equal partner in government, and has played that role ever since.

Some common words found in the essay are:
Supreme Court, Escobedo Illinois, Courts Legislators, Catholic Church, Article III, Lord Fairfax, Fifth Amendment, William Marbury, Miranda Arizona, Federal Constitution, supreme court, ecclesiastical courts, federal courts, 384 436, law enforcement, judiciary act, supreme court power, royal justice, law interpreted, curia regis, set precedent law, united supreme, law enforcement agencies, united supreme court, enforcement agencies courts,
Approximate Word count = 2278
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page double spaced)