3 ms·
I'd point out that until Marbury v Madison the supreme court was not a co-equal branch. It was simply an interpreter of what congress passed with no ability to
by tehjoker 6y ago
I'd point out that until Marbury v Madison the supreme court was not a co-equal branch. It was simply an interpreter of what congress passed with no ability to declare things unconstitutional. It was a power grab by the courts.
You can claim declaring laws unconstitutional is kind of an implied power, but it is certainly no where in the text.
Other thinkers have said that legalism is fake and there is really only contests between political factions with a legal gloss to pretend things are fair and objective. If you take that critique seriously, then the courts shouldn't have that power and congress should decide what is constitutional as they are actually elected and represent legitimate authority.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> If you take that critique seriously, then the courts shouldn't have that power and congress should decide what is constitutional as they are actually elected and represent legitimate authority Philosophically, I like this argument. Practically, dear god. The U.S. system was supposed to balance the stability of monarchy (executive) and aristocracy (judiciary) against the justness of democracy (legislative). Our executive is, by design and decidedly, not monarchic. That removes a "slow thinking" system, leaving the "fast thinking" executive and legislature. We see the results in our political volatility. Given the last two hundred years, Marbury was right. We needed a dampener, so to speak. People not incentivized by poll numbers. P.S. Thank you. This has been a fun discussion and distraction.
- tehjoker 6y agoAlways enjoy talking constitutionalism. :D