thompsonx
Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Unless there was some way to know what the Framers intended. Too bad there was nothing written about what the Framers intended. Oh. Wait.
You have reminded us that you are a strict constructionist. That the declaration of independence and the preamble to the constitution have no force in law.
There is no place in the constitution that specifically gives the scotus authority to declare a law unconstitutional yet you claim it does but it is not in the constitution. The article posted says it was discussed but still was not put in the constitution...why was that? If it is not in the constitution then how do you get there from your premis?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States#Statements_by_the_framers_of_the_Constitution_regarding_judicial_review
From your cite:
Chief Justice John Marshall maintained that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of their sworn oath of office to uphold the Constitution as instructed in Article Six of the Constitution.
The man who instituted the concept of judicial review says your reasoning is incorrect and that you are as usual full of shit.
From your cite:
The concept of judicial review therefore was familiar to the framers and to the public before the Constitutional Convention.
Clearly well known but still not put into the constitution.
Why????Could it be that they did not want it there?
From your cite:
The text of the Constitution does not contain a specific reference to the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI.[11]
You have claimed on numerous occasions That there are no implied powers and that only the "easy to read words" of the constitution are the law and nothing else.
Once again your own cite is pointing out that as usual you are full of shit.
You seem to be claiming that the "judicial act of 1789 gave the scotus the authority of judicial but your cite says:
The constitutional issue involved the question of whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the case.[44] The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in cases involving writs of mandamus. So, under the Judiciary Act, the Supreme Court would have had jurisdiction to hear Marbury's case. However, the Constitution describes the cases in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, and does not include mandamus cases.[45] The Judiciary Act therefore attempted to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction that was not "warranted by the Constitution."[46]
Marshall's opinion stated that in the Constitution, the people established a government of limited powers: "The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written." The limits established in the Constitution would be meaningless "if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained." Marshall observed that the Constitution is "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation", and that it cannot be altered by an ordinary act of the legislature. Therefore, "an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void."[47]
Clearly marshal is saying that the implied powers oif the constitution and not the judiciary act of 1789 is the source of judicial review.
Implied powers which you claim do not exist.
|
RE: The Immigration Ban - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread