Did the Founders want a weak central government?

[Bern80]

Everyone knows what the doctrine of judicial review is, what its history is, and how it has been applied in American history. The history is taught in high school, college, and university. You are a smarmy fool who does not have the strength of his principles to discuss this.

Okay I have brushed up on the subject and still have a question. What do you mean by do I disagree with judicial review in the U.S.? Do you mean to ask, do I disagree with it as means of making sure the legislature abides by the constitution? Or do you mean do I disagree with decisions made under judicial review?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You begin with (1) how you understand it historically, (2) your opinion if it fits in Article III of the Constitution, and (3) if the court has used it appropriately.

 

[Bern80]

You begin with (1) how you understand it historically, (2) your opinion if it fits in Article III of the Constitution, and (3) if the court has used it appropriately.

The basic concept is it is a process used by the judicial branch of government to review the constitutionality of legislation passed by the executive and/or legislative branches. From a consturctionist stand point, no, the judicial review is not mentioned in Articles III. As to whether it has been used appropriately, if one is a constructionist one could argue the fact that it has been used at all means it has not been used appropriately.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I imagine a strict constructionist could say that.

 

[Bern80]

I imagine a strict constructionist could say that.

Well it's either that or grant the judicial branch a power not mentioned at all in the constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your argument is easily surmounted, in my opinion, that a nation based on constitutional must have a mechanism that judges if laws meet the constitution's design. Since the founders who spoke about judicial review generally supported it, and since nine of the original states had it written into their constitutions, I think SCOTUS assumption of the role is defensible.

 

[Bern80]

Your argument is easily surmounted, in my opinion, that a nation based on constitutional must have a mechanism that judges if laws meet the constitution's design. Since the founders who spoke about judicial review generally supported it, and since nine of the original states had it written into their constitutions, I think SCOTUS assumption of the role is defensible.

I know a lot of the framers mentioned it. But I thought you didn't care about what a bunch of 200 year old dead guys thought. That their ways were old and antiquated and only took the country backwards. That was why you and I agreed we should abide by the constitution as it was constructed and not by the differing opinions of the framers.