3 ms·
This is the part of the system which makes me scratch my head. The constitution is the source of where the courts derive their power. Being able to change the
by geggam 10y ago
This is the part of the system which makes me scratch my head.
The constitution is the source of where the courts derive their power. Being able to change the level of power you have seems to be against the constitutions purpose of defining, limiting, and binding the Govt.
Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution states:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,
.... Not OVER the constition... Under it.
- jcranmer 10y agoThat kind of parsimonious interpretation has no legal bearing. A dispute over the meaning of the Constitution would naturally arise under [the laws of] the Constitution. It should also be noted that it was long-standing British common law that courts ruled on the interpretation of law, and that there was ample precedent in the US revolutionary period of state Supreme Courts voiding state laws under state constitutions. Virtually every reference to the notion of questions of constitutionality pre-Marbury v Madison accepts that the judicial courts would play a role in this regard. The only extent to which the decision would have been surprising would have been in arguing whose opinion won it in the case of conflicts. (Note that nullification crises continued up to the Civil War).