jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (5 posts)

According to the constitution does the Federal Supreme Court have the power of j

  1. tsadjatko profile image66
    tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago

    According to the constitution does the Federal Supreme Court have the power of judicial review ?

    The idea that the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of constitutionality issues has become so ingrained that most people incorrectly believe that the Constitution granted this power to the federal judiciary. Did you know that while the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define a "power" of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.  Examine http://constitutionality.us/USConstitution.html#art3 to assure yourself that no power of Judicial Review is granted by the constitution.


  2. profile image59
    nounjbposted 2 years ago

    While perhaps not to your complete satisfaction, the following item certainly seems to remove any doubt about who is considered to be in the position to do exactly that:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_r … ted_States

    This suits my concept of what their mission is.

    1. tsadjatko profile image66
      tsadjatkoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Only thing that satisfies me is an actual answer to the actual question, Apparently you think everything is as it should be, and that is fine  with me. Certainly better than bloviating about seeds and trees, time travel and "it" whatever "it" is.

  3. wba108@yahoo.com profile image81
    wba108@yahoo.composted 2 years ago

    From what I understand so far, the majority of the founders did support a limited form of judicial review but would not have approved today's type of review as it has evolved into a judicial supremacy over Congress.

    Federalist no 78 expressed that the province of the courts were to interpret the law. and that the Constitution was superior to ordinary law. The Supreme court was to void laws contrary to the Constitution.

    Originally all three branch of government also felt is was their duty to interpret the Constitution and not just leave it to the courts. At times the executive branch would refuse to enforce decisions of the courts because it felt the courts had overstepped their authority. Congress would also debate the Constitutionality of its own bills not just leave it to the courts.

    The founders felt that the ultimate arbitrator of the Constitution were the people not the courts. And Congress more closely represented the people than the executive or judicial branches because they were the most accountable and closest branch representing the will of the people.

    What we have today is a Congress that has ceded its most important powers to the judicial and executive branches so that they are relived of having to make important Constitutional decisions. They do this because they've made a career out of being a politician.

    The Judicial branch was originally intended to be the weakest branch and under the oversight of Congress because Congress has the power to limit the scope and jurisdiction of judicial power. They also had the power to impeach judges for violations of the Constitution.

    1. tsadjatko profile image66
      tsadjatkoposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you, WBA! An educated and reasoned answer is easy to understand, and to analyze which will take me a little less time than to study junkseller's seeds and trees,time travel &"it" whatever "it" was and how they relate to the constitution.