1. Define the term judicial review and discuss its importance for American Jurisprudence. What arguments did Justice Marshall make in favor of this approach, and what were the objections raised in cases such as Eakin vs Staub? What are the limitations on judicial review, and include a case that demonstrates these limitations. Overall, how well has the procedure of judicial review served American governance and support your view with evidence. 2. Federal justices are granted lifetime appointments in hopes of fostering judicial independence. Define the term judicial independence and discuss its effect on American governance. Do lifetime appointments successfully insulate justices from political pressures and allow for making hard decisions on difficult issues, allow justices appointed by past Presidents to thwart the initiatives of later Presidents, or a bit of both? All things considered, has judicial independence served the US well and be retained or should the process be reformed to allow for a more politically responsive judiciary? 3. Several Supreme Court decisions have held that the President and Congress cannot adopt procedures that conflict with the terms of the Constitution. Powell vs McCormack (1969) required that a duly elected Congressional representative be seated despite attempts to oust him for malfeasance. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. vs Thornton (1995) struck down state attempts to impose term limits upon members of Congress, and Clinton vs City of New York (1998) struck down the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996. Originalism (including variants original intent, original meaning, and textualism) is an approach to interpreting the Constitution frequently favored by conservatives, but the Justices dissenting in the aforementioned decisions were mostly appointed by Republican Presidents. Were the majority decisions in these cases (Powell, Thornton, and Clinton) consistent with the concept of originalism, and explain your answer.