2 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoGood 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 agoI 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?