3 ms·

You are doing this weird thing I see on this web site at times when someones takes a court case they like and accepts whatever the judge states carte blanche.

You are doing this weird thing I see on this web site at times when someones takes a court case they like and accepts whatever the judge states carte blanche. No further reading required. The fact judicial review is not in the constitution is not controversial. Here's what Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts web sight says: "The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803)." https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
torstenvl 4y ago
I'm not just someone "on this website," I'm a Harvard-educated lawyer in the federal government with over a decade of experience, including litigating Constitutional issues in federal district court. I assure you, there have been years and years of "further reading" and it was emphatically required. It's a trendy take to say that judicial review isn't in the Constitution, and that may be superficially true, but it ignores two important facts that contradict that take: (1) Article III's explicit grant of "appellate jurisdiction ... as to law" (2) The Framers' own words in the Judiciary Act of 1789, which explicitly anticipates cases "draw[ing] in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under the United States, [where] the decision is against their validity" and reaffirms that such decisions may be "reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States." It is very clear what "appellate jurisdiction ... as to law" in "cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made" means. And for anyone who has any lingering doubts, just look to how the Framers implemented it in the very first Judiciary Act, less than seven months after the Constitution went into effect.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

torstenvl 4y ago

I'm not just someone "on this website," I'm a Harvard-educated lawyer in the federal government with over a decade of experience, including litigating Constitutional issues in federal district court. I assure you, there have been years and years of "further reading" and it was emphatically required. It's a trendy take to say that judicial review isn't in the Constitution, and that may be superficially true, but it ignores two important facts that contradict that take: (1) Article III's explicit grant of "appellate jurisdiction ... as to law" (2) The Framers' own words in the Judiciary Act of 1789, which explicitly anticipates cases "draw[ing] in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under the United States, [where] the decision is against their validity" and reaffirms that such decisions may be "reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States." It is very clear what "appellate jurisdiction ... as to law" in "cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made" means. And for anyone who has any lingering doubts, just look to how the Framers implemented it in the very first Judiciary Act, less than seven months after the Constitution went into effect.