posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 07:02 PM
Originally posted by METACOMET
reply to post by ownbestenemy
All I'm saying here is that the power assumed by the supreme court is not granted to them in the constitution. It just isn't there. Assuming power not
specifically delegated goes against the very purpose of having a constitution in the first place.
I agree but then what role does the Supreme Court hold if they are not able to review and hear cases? That is what judicial review is; when people
bring suit that makes its way to the Supreme Court they have to show cause as to why the Supreme Court has the authority to hear it.
So even if we take Jefferson's comments (similar comments made by Madison, Hamilton and Jay) who is going to declare those laws unjust and
unconstitutional? The Congress who enacted them? The Executive that enjoys them? The People who may be benefiting from them? The media who
promoted them? The businesses reaping from them? Hence an independent judiciary.
I admire your staunch constitutional view as I hold the same but I would recommend moving away from relying solely upon Jefferson to support your
claims. Madison, Hamilton, Adams, Jay, Paine, Henry and Morris were far more influential in designing the structure of the Government to actually
operate and not consistently offer platitudes as Jefferson oft did. Not saying he isn't important, but I notice many who are either coming around to
or hold onto whatever knowledge they have of the the Constitution just look to him as their point of authority upon the Constitution.
Interestingly though is our obvious rift is that akin to Marshall and Jefferson; history it seems, draws such parallels from time to time. His pure
democratic view that the People would willfully vote out of office persons of the individual branches that have violated the Constitution with their
actions shows flaw and disregard for the republic he helped create.
Jefferson himself started out believing that judicial review was good -- until Marshall established it -- then it was bad; because it was directly
against him as president.
Jefferson himself highly praised Virginia's judges for having disregarded state legislation found to be at odds with the state constitution; and
his assumption that courts would perform likewise with respect to the federal Constitution was advanced by him as a principal reason for adding a
"bill of rights" by amendment."
Elbridge Gerry mentioned the following during the Constitutional Convention:
"The Constitution will undoubtedly be their first rule; and so far as your laws conform to that, they will attend to them, but no
To the above, I agree. The Court must have the ability to examine and attend to cases that call into question the Constitutionality of an Act created
by Congress or and action that the Executive has taken. With that, they will have to derive their opinion based on precedents; which at that time,
was Black's law dictionary, Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers, and other various writings and convention notes.
edit on 18-1-2013 by
ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)