4 ms·

They did anticipate (and in fact mandated) courts to interpret the Constitution, which they did and they do. I didn't claim the courts' decisions are necessaril

They did anticipate (and in fact mandated) courts to interpret the Constitution, which they did and they do. I didn't claim the courts' decisions are necessarily "final or correct." I'm saying if you believe that courts are routinely violating rights then you don't know how rights are derived in this country.

ty6853 2y ago
Founders didn't believe rights were derived from the courts or any part of government.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Philosophically sure, but note the rather elaborate system they created to encode that philosophical view into reality. They clearly did not think that God would do the heavy lifting. That's what we're talking about here.
hiatus 2y ago
> They did anticipate (and in fact mandated) courts to interpret the Constitution FWIW judicial review was not a mandate in the constitution but was something the court decided it could do with Marbury v Madison. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Good point, "mandated" is probably overdoing it, though in practice to judge a case necessitates an interpretation of the relevant law. Judicial review was officially challenged and affirmed in Marbury v Madison. That wasn't where it was "decided" they could do it. As the article you just posted (and a basic understanding of western judicial tradition) clearly explains, judicial review in America predates not just Marbury v Madison, but the Constitution itself. The Marbury decision itself is predicated on the prior point: it is literally not possible to have a judiciary that doesn't interpret the laws themselves.
  - solidsnack9000 2y ago
    I think that is really what it comes down to: courts can't do anything if they can't interpret the law. The scope and extent of that interpretation should be fairly limited -- the tendency of the common law system to accumulate "judge made law" can lead to inconsistencies (and certainly has, with regards to the 2nd Amendment) -- but how could law ever be so thorough and systematic as to obviate the need for such interpretation entirely?

ty6853 2y ago

Founders didn't believe rights were derived from the courts or any part of government.

llamaimperative 2y ago
Philosophically sure, but note the rather elaborate system they created to encode that philosophical view into reality. They clearly did not think that God would do the heavy lifting. That's what we're talking about here.

hiatus 2y ago

> They did anticipate (and in fact mandated) courts to interpret the Constitution FWIW judicial review was not a mandate in the constitution but was something the court decided it could do with Marbury v Madison. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

llamaimperative 2y ago
Good point, "mandated" is probably overdoing it, though in practice to judge a case necessitates an interpretation of the relevant law. Judicial review was officially challenged and affirmed in Marbury v Madison. That wasn't where it was "decided" they could do it. As the article you just posted (and a basic understanding of western judicial tradition) clearly explains, judicial review in America predates not just Marbury v Madison, but the Constitution itself. The Marbury decision itself is predicated on the prior point: it is literally not possible to have a judiciary that doesn't interpret the laws themselves.
- solidsnack9000 2y ago
  I think that is really what it comes down to: courts can't do anything if they can't interpret the law. The scope and extent of that interpretation should be fairly limited -- the tendency of the common law system to accumulate "judge made law" can lead to inconsistencies (and certainly has, with regards to the 2nd Amendment) -- but how could law ever be so thorough and systematic as to obviate the need for such interpretation entirely?