Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You should be more "judicious" in your opinions on the Constitution.
How 9 judicial oligarchs decree a thing does not change the thing itself.
Nowhere in the US Constitution does the Supreme Court have the power to use judicial decision to modify the Constitution by amassing precedent. They gave themselves that power in the 1950s with an interpretation of Marbury v Madison.
The circular logic of judicial review (aka: "judicial supremacy") goes like this: the SCOTUS made a decision in Marbury v Madison and ~160 years later, decided that based on that earlier decision, they are the super legislature via judicial precedent because they decided then that was decided before has decided to let them decide everything because they decided it.
And neither the executive nor legislative branches did their job properly by acting as the check on the judicial, thus sanctioning the new super legislature. They did this because with lifetime appointments, troublesome issues that the people should hold elected officials accountable for could be handled by unaccountable people, and the accountable elected folks could simply make speeches that adhered to whatever popular sentiment was.
None of this is part of the US Constitution, because nowhere in the Constitution will you find - "but all of this is null and void if the federal government says 'screw it' and does whatever they want."
None of this is part of the US Constitution, because nowhere in the Constitution will you find - "but all of this is null and void if the federal government says 'screw it' and does whatever they want."
Thank you. I hope there are enough people left in this country that understand that.
I doubt that the Supreme Court will overturn Marbury v. Madison any time soon. The persons (not oligarchs) at the Supreme Court are the final arbiters of the interpretation of the Constitution; and their decisions are binding as law, unless reversed by the court, legislatively overruled by Congress (which is nevertheless subject to judicial review), or by constitutional amendment.
It was crafted by the greatest American minds of the political world over 200 years ago. Our best political minds today would be serving drinks, laboring in fields, tending shops and herding animals if they lived back then.
Its a great document, one that shouldn't be tampered with by lesser minds.
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
The interpretation of the Constitution is a matter that is the province of the judicial power - it is implicit in its provisions. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Under Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution, the judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court, and such other lower federal courts as the Congress may establish, with jurisdiction over cases and controversies arising under the Constitution and substantial cases where there is diversity of citizenship subject to the limitations of the Eleventh Amendment. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the interpretation of the Constitution, and its decisions are binding as law. Indeed, it would not be possible for the court to exercise that grant of jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution without interpreting its provisions.
The fundamental statist defaults any omissions, vagueness and unknowns as granting more power to the state. Wendell Phillips is a fundamental statist.
The fundamental individualist defaults any omissions, vagueness and unknowns as granting more power to the individual. I am a fundamental individualist.
How you view things like the judicial branch giving itself power as the super legislature, unaccountable to the people in any way, depends on your fundamental outlook on statism and individualism.
So the "where" question concerning judicial supremacy is answered by one's imagination. If you are a statist, you imagine it to be there because you want Leviathan to have more power.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
