3 ms·
It's not clear that they intended judicial review at all. Keep in mind that the framers didn't assume permanent political parties, without which Congress and t
by gdwatson 11y ago
It's not clear that they intended judicial review at all.
Keep in mind that the framers didn't assume permanent political parties, without which Congress and the president would be better able to check each other. And the system lacked any real federal law enforcement, leaving state nullification of federal law a practical possibility even if legally controversial.
Judicial review is more important for us than it was for them because we lack so many of those counterweights. But a powerful judiciary introduces its own set of problems.
- simoncion 11y ago> It's not clear that they intended judicial review at all. In 1796 [0] the Supreme Court chose to hear a case [1] challenging the constitutionality of an act of Congress. This was Judicial review of Legislative power. Alexander Hamilton [2] argued on behalf of the US Government. I respectfully disagree with your opinion. [0] 219 years ago, and only twenty years after the founding of the country. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylton_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylton_v._United_States [2] A Founding Father
- gdwatson 11y agoOn further reading it looks like most of the convention delegates favored the concept, though of course there are always dissenters. I stand corrected. But I stand by my point about the loss of other balances within and against federal power.