regent
Gold Member
- Jan 30, 2012
- 10,459
- 1,148
- 245
Is that how we want to read the Constitution what we believe is readily apparent or we believe the power is implicit? Some believed the president should have that power or the Congress and some even the states.1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,
No, no, that's not the power to decide if a law of Congress is Constitutional. It says the Court has the power to try all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution, that's under the Constitution. If those words covered the power to declare an act of Congress, there would be little controversy about Marbury. Marshall did a slick con job with Marbury by declaring part of the Judicial Act of 1789 unconstitutional which pleased the Jeffersonians. It took some time for the Jeffersonians to realize what had happened. Too late.
While I AGREE that the term "judicial review" and the concept of the SCOTUS having the power to nullify an Act does not appear in the words of the constitution, it seems pretty readily apparent that the power is actually implicit.
For if we were to believe otherwise, we'd be obliged to accept the notion that once Congress passes and the President approves an act that does violate a provision of the Constitution, that we are nevertheless "stuck" with it.
The JUDICIAL co-equal Branch of our tripartite form of government would NOT have the ability to serve as much of a check in that case, now would it?
It exists today not JUST because Marshall SAID so in Marbury v. Madison. It exists because what Marshall said in that case IS actually an implied power. It is implied of logical necessity and founded on the historical basis of our laws.