Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Between following the constitution strictly as written ....
that would require a strictly "written" constitution - so your question is rhetorical and not pertaining to the US Constitution - as US has a Judiciary for interpretation.
No... there is no power of judicial review granted to the SC in the constitution.. that is a power that it granted unto itself
I'm not certain of that. Surely the founders were aware of precedent of the Coke decision and others, so one would expect them to clarify if they did not intend that role for the Supreme Court.
Afterall, when they speak of the "Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof", they clearly understand that someone needs to decide which laws are "in pursuance thereof". It would be difficult to support a union where each state got to decide which federal laws it felt were in pursuance.
Sure, but you either missed the point or I wasn't clear. The Constitution grants someone a power to determine which laws are made in pursuance of the constitution.No... there is no power of judicial review granted to the SC in the constitution.. that is a power that it granted unto itself
I'm not certain of that. Surely the founders were aware of precedent of the Coke decision and others, so one would expect them to clarify if they did not intend that role for the Supreme Court.
Afterall, when they speak of the "Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof", they clearly understand that someone needs to decide which laws are "in pursuance thereof". It would be difficult to support a union where each state got to decide which federal laws it felt were in pursuance.
Then show the power granted for judicial review in the constitution... What you cite is in reference to Atricle 6 which is not granting power to the Judicial.. as a matter of fact it defines limits and adherence to the constitution by law
If you were forced to choose...
Between following the constitution strictly as written, and eliminating it all together and empowering government to do whatever it felt it had to do... Which would you choose and why??
It is indeed a simple question... and take this like an all powerful megabeing (God, Superman, invading alien force or whatever) was making it that there was indeed no in between choice or option
Between following the constitution strictly as written ....
that would require a strictly "written" constitution - so your question is rhetorical and not pertaining to the US Constitution - as US has a Judiciary for interpretation.
No... there is no power of judicial review granted to the SC in the constitution.. that is a power that it granted unto itself
We do have a specifically and strictly written constitution.. we however do have a government that has gotten used to not operating within its strict limits
Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. The landmark decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.
Sure, but you either missed the point or I wasn't clear. The Constitution grants someone a power to determine which laws are made in pursuance of the constitution.I'm not certain of that. Surely the founders were aware of precedent of the Coke decision and others, so one would expect them to clarify if they did not intend that role for the Supreme Court.
Afterall, when they speak of the "Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof", they clearly understand that someone needs to decide which laws are "in pursuance thereof". It would be difficult to support a union where each state got to decide which federal laws it felt were in pursuance.
Then show the power granted for judicial review in the constitution... What you cite is in reference to Atricle 6 which is not granting power to the Judicial.. as a matter of fact it defines limits and adherence to the constitution by law
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Who is tasked with determining which laws are in pursuance of the Constitution and which are not? The Constitution states that state judges are bound by it, but not who determines it.
Within the lifetimes of those who signed the Constitution - indeed, while many of them held elected office in the government they created - the Supreme Court ruled that it was their role to decide what was in pursuance. ten years later that was reaffirmed. The people who wrote the document, still alive and active at the time, did not pass a law or propose an amendment to the contrary.
Between following the constitution strictly as written ....
that would require a strictly "written" constitution - so your question is rhetorical and not pertaining to the US Constitution - as US has a Judiciary for interpretation.
No... there is no power of judicial review granted to the SC in the constitution.. that is a power that it granted unto itself
We do have a specifically and strictly written constitution.. we however do have a government that has gotten used to not operating within its strict limits
Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. The landmark decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.
We do have a specifically and strictly written constitution..
since when, today at 8:25 AM ???
not if there is interpretation by the Judiciary as distinct from the executive and legislative branches of "Government".
if the thread is basing its argument on the US Constitution.
Sure, but you either missed the point or I wasn't clear. The Constitution grants someone a power to determine which laws are made in pursuance of the constitution.Then show the power granted for judicial review in the constitution... What you cite is in reference to Atricle 6 which is not granting power to the Judicial.. as a matter of fact it defines limits and adherence to the constitution by law
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Who is tasked with determining which laws are in pursuance of the Constitution and which are not? The Constitution states that state judges are bound by it, but not who determines it.
Within the lifetimes of those who signed the Constitution - indeed, while many of them held elected office in the government they created - the Supreme Court ruled that it was their role to decide what was in pursuance. ten years later that was reaffirmed. The people who wrote the document, still alive and active at the time, did not pass a law or propose an amendment to the contrary.
The judges are bound.. not free to interpret and not free to give themselves the power to change so they can interpret... their powers, like all other powers granted to the other branches, are indeed strictly laid out
Between following the constitution strictly as written, and eliminating it all together and empowering government to do whatever it felt it had to do... Which would you choose and why??
It is indeed a simple question... and take this like an all powerful megabeing (God, Superman, invading alien force or whatever) was making it that there was indeed no in between choice or option
Your "poll" is a classic example of the false choice. The choice offered is ridiculous. Both options suck!
Imagine you have to face that situation as president. Do you act or wait for congress?Is having Japan occupy California and in the process turning San Francisco into an American Nanking worth waiting for the process?That is speculation..
Yes, it would have been HARDER for them to achieve what they wanted to achieve (rightly or wrongly)... but it is intended to be hard to change, keeping out whim and change without checks and balances
Again speculation...
Imagine you have to face that situation as president. Do you act or wait for congress?Is having Japan occupy California and in the process turning San Francisco into an American Nanking worth waiting for the process?
Again speculation...
Your navy has just been decimated.
There is no authority to do any such thing.. it was not to be interpreted, but taken strictly...
If judicial review was something that appeared to be wanted or needed, it should have been done or granted to the SC by AMENDMENT, it was never done that way.. hence the power did not and still does not exist, in actuality.. it was just something assumed and grabbed
Do I think judicial review is inherently a bad thing? No, in CONCEPT, but since the power was not strictly granted and strictly limited, it does not really exist... To grab a power without the checks and balances in place to indeed review what is being granted is a bad thing
There is no authority to do any such thing.. it was not to be interpreted, but taken strictly...
If judicial review was something that appeared to be wanted or needed, it should have been done or granted to the SC by AMENDMENT, it was never done that way.. hence the power did not and still does not exist, in actuality.. it was just something assumed and grabbed
Do I think judicial review is inherently a bad thing? No, in CONCEPT, but since the power was not strictly granted and strictly limited, it does not really exist... To grab a power without the checks and balances in place to indeed review what is being granted is a bad thing
There is no authority to do any such thing.. it was not to be interpreted, but taken strictly...
If judicial review was something that appeared to be wanted or needed, it should have been done or granted to the SC by AMENDMENT, it was never done that way.. hence the power did not and still does not exist, in actuality.. it was just something assumed and grabbed
Do I think judicial review is inherently a bad thing? No, in CONCEPT, but since the power was not strictly granted and strictly limited, it does not really exist... To grab a power without the checks and balances in place to indeed review what is being granted is a bad thing
Again, which courts decide whether or not a law is in pursuance of the Constitution? Or is it simply in pursuance because Congress passed it with a majority vote (in other words, it's deemed constitutional because Congress said so).
And it wasn't just "Assumed". The concept existed before Marbury, it was confirmed again after Marbury and the founders - still alive and holding elected office at the time - did not rise up in unanimous opposition.
Between following the constitution strictly as written, and eliminating it all together and empowering government to do whatever it felt it had to do... Which would you choose and why??
It is indeed a simple question... and take this like an all powerful megabeing (God, Superman, invading alien force or whatever) was making it that there was indeed no in between choice or option
There is no authority to do any such thing.. it was not to be interpreted, but taken strictly...
If judicial review was something that appeared to be wanted or needed, it should have been done or granted to the SC by AMENDMENT, it was never done that way.. hence the power did not and still does not exist, in actuality.. it was just something assumed and grabbed
Do I think judicial review is inherently a bad thing? No, in CONCEPT, but since the power was not strictly granted and strictly limited, it does not really exist... To grab a power without the checks and balances in place to indeed review what is being granted is a bad thing
Again, which courts decide whether or not a law is in pursuance of the Constitution? Or is it simply in pursuance because Congress passed it with a majority vote (in other words, it's deemed constitutional because Congress said so).
And it wasn't just "Assumed". The concept existed before Marbury, it was confirmed again after Marbury and the founders - still alive and holding elected office at the time - did not rise up in unanimous opposition.
That power is not a granted power... it was not left up to interpretation
It was indeed assumed, or it would have been added to the constitution via amendment
Again.. not like I disagree with judicial review.. I do not think it is great as we have it because the limitations are not strictly laid out, nor is the specific power... I am simply saying that power is not actually granted to the SC by the constitution.. .it is one that was grabbed otherwise against the constitution