Another great post! Hat Tip Mangus
no the power of judicial review is not mentioned in the constitution. because Judicial Review was used in 13th century law but the courts didn't agree with it so it was forgotten. until the case ...
The Supreme Court is not explicitly given the power of judicial review. It is, however, an implied power. The power of judicial review was asserted by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, a case in which he declared a section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. Previously, the Court had made decisions supporting acts of Congress; this was the first time it had acted against it.
That is not to say that the idea of judicial review did not exist before this case, or that it was not considered in the writing of the Constitution. It was debated during the Constitutional Convention, it just wasn't explicitly written. Even when Marshall's decision was made in the case of Marbury v. Madison, his claim to judicial review was not doubted or opposed.
I am sure that many will learn from this post - John Marshall only had a few weeks of legal training but was clever and used his skills to usurp the limits of Article III and the Constitution to grab power - proof is here that case law theory is not included in the Constitution.
Interesting that the courts have no actual powers to do what they now do? Why do we let them continue? Oh maybe Congress is in the tank as the courts allow them to seize powers outside the Constitution? Is it all after all just money and power?
Mangus, it certainly answers the questions I had, and at the same time, I now have more questions!
Yup! Money and Power= greed
Greed, or avarice, is an inordinate or insatiable longing for material gain, be it food, money, status, or power. As a secular psychological concept, greed is an inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than one needs.
Yes and throughout the history of man we covet what others have earned thus we have endless wars?
Mangus I track well with your comments.
If the demon-rats prevail guaranteed the fed district courts along with possible expansion of supreme court justices and the courts will be writing law and the notion of a living constitution will be implemented on a grand scale.
Mangus your comment along with a question says it all, "Interesting that the courts have no actual powers to do what they now do? Why do we let them continue? Oh maybe Congress is in the tank as the courts allow them to seize powers outside the Constitution? Is it all after all just money and power?"