4 ms·

It’s not really a separate power. Courts express their understanding of the law. Some laws are statutes, some are the constitution itself. If there are conflict

It’s not really a separate power. Courts express their understanding of the law. Some laws are statutes, some are the constitution itself. If there are conflicts then the court will express its opinion on which is authoritative. What the Executive and Legislative branches choose to do after the fact are things those branches may do.

bumby 2y ago
It becomes a somewhat circular argument. Through their ruling of Marbury v. Madison, the court declared the Constitution as law. Article 3 of the Constitution gives the court judicial power to interpret law. Therefore, by their own ruling they gave themselves the power to decide what is (or isn’t) constitutional.
- cryptonector 2y ago
  > Through their ruling of Marbury v. Madison, the court declared the Constitution as law. The constitution declares itself as supreme law. See the Supremacy Clause: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The order in which the supreme laws are given is: constitution, statutes, treaties.
- brewdad 2y ago
  Which seems like an enormous power grab on the one hand but I can’t really see any other way for them to be a check on the other branches without that power. There needs to be some legal basis to declare a law invalid. The Constitution (with all of its vagueness at times) seems like the better way than simply vibes.
  - cryptonector 2y ago
    The Supremacy Clause lists the supreme laws in order: constitution, federal statutes, treaties. If there is a conflict among them then it's natural for the courts to resolve that conflict by deferring to the more supreme item on that list, thus if a law violates -say- the right to due process as enshrined in the constitution then that law must be invalid and the courts must rule as much. Marbury is an utterly natural consequence of the Supremacy Clause and Article III (and the context of common law).
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

bumby 2y ago

It becomes a somewhat circular argument. Through their ruling of Marbury v. Madison, the court declared the Constitution as law. Article 3 of the Constitution gives the court judicial power to interpret law. Therefore, by their own ruling they gave themselves the power to decide what is (or isn’t) constitutional.

cryptonector 2y ago
> Through their ruling of Marbury v. Madison, the court declared the Constitution as law. The constitution declares itself as supreme law. See the Supremacy Clause: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The order in which the supreme laws are given is: constitution, statutes, treaties.
brewdad 2y ago
Which seems like an enormous power grab on the one hand but I can’t really see any other way for them to be a check on the other branches without that power. There needs to be some legal basis to declare a law invalid. The Constitution (with all of its vagueness at times) seems like the better way than simply vibes.
- cryptonector 2y ago
  The Supremacy Clause lists the supreme laws in order: constitution, federal statutes, treaties. If there is a conflict among them then it's natural for the courts to resolve that conflict by deferring to the more supreme item on that list, thus if a law violates -say- the right to due process as enshrined in the constitution then that law must be invalid and the courts must rule as much. Marbury is an utterly natural consequence of the Supremacy Clause and Article III (and the context of common law).
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]