Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I know. That's my point.Interesting then that Article III does not specifically grant this power to the court - that the court itself had to take the power for itself by fiat.
The Supreme Court of the United States established judicial review in the case of Marbury v. Madison, which was argued before the Supreme Court in 1801.
Judicial review did not exist until the court decided it had the power to decide it had the power of Judicial review. It took the power for itself by fiat.
Yes....Article III Section 2 states:
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,
Where in that is the power granted to the court to interpret the meaning of the Constitution? If that power is there, why/how did it not exist until the court gave it to itself in Marbury, as -you- said?
Um.... Article III was adopted at the sme time as all of the other articles.actually since 1789 happened before 1801, article 3 sections 1 and 2 of the constitution were in effect already. the supreme court has never exercised the power until 1801, which was another 12 years after the adoption of article 3. so you are correct in saying that it was not in the original constitution, but then again you are incorrect because the constitution was amended to include said section.
Oh. Well THAT settles it.I say that it does! That's exactly what those words mean in my estimation.
Um.... Article III was adopted at the sme time as all of the other articles.actually since 1789 happened before 1801, article 3 sections 1 and 2 of the constitution were in effect already. the supreme court has never exercised the power until 1801, which was another 12 years after the adoption of article 3. so you are correct in saying that it was not in the original constitution, but then again you are incorrect because the constitution was amended to include said section.
Article III was not added as an amendment.
AND... nothing in Article III specifies a power of judicial review - the court gave this to istelf.
Its pretty self-explanatory, isnlt it?Um.... Article III was adopted at the sme time as all of the other articles.actually since 1789 happened before 1801, article 3 sections 1 and 2 of the constitution were in effect already. the supreme court has never exercised the power until 1801, which was another 12 years after the adoption of article 3. so you are correct in saying that it was not in the original constitution, but then again you are incorrect because the constitution was amended to include said section.
Article III was not added as an amendment.
AND... nothing in Article III specifies a power of judicial review - the court gave this to istelf.
Can you please interpret this line of the constitution:
judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution
Yes... -I- passed American Government when I was in 8th grade.also The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in each U.S. state.
You could not -possibly- be more wrong.Since Article III was added via The United States Judiciary Act of 1789 (ch. 20, 1 Stat. 73-93) on September 24, 1789 in the first session of the First United States Congress.sooooooo like i said Article III was added in 1789....
The irony in this made me laugh so hard I almost blew my ice cream all over the monitor. Thanks!Please try to read and educate before you try to spread false rumors and lies.
I hope that this law really educates a lot of people...and that's on both sides of the aisle.
The problem isn't with requiring this law...it's with enforcing this law.
Here's why: let's say you pass this law (or it already exists). people can write anything the want in this section. who is going to "check to see that it's right?"
wait...is a light going off in your head? it should...because that's the job of the judiciary!!! The Constitution is open to interpretation for a REASON. Not just because it's old...but because the Founding Fathers had multiple, conflicting points of view...and WANTED it to be interpreted!!
You can't do a "quick check to see if a law is constitutional"...because that's the job of the courts!
Whose version or interpretation of the constitution are you going to use, numbnuts?
Is the recent push to "only fund what's IN the Constitution" going to give way to the ACTUALITY that there are constitutional doctrines that arose through valid caselaw? Are these wingnuts going to realize that the President was given the power to create executive agencies that ARENT IN the damn document?
This "we own the Constitutution and you hate it" bullshit has got to stop. No one group owns it...we all do.
Article III Section 2 states: Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,
Courts review and interpret laws. SCOTUS was given the power over "all cases, in law and equity." No doubt exists SCOTUS had the constitutional authority to review Marbury.
Comrades,
This is most upsetting to me! How dare anyone question the supremacy of the state or of its' authority.
Who do these racist, misogynist, xenophobe, right wingers think they are?
Stating with the new congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.
Needless to say, this is most upsetting to those of us on the progressive side for several reasons:
-how degrading that we must defer to the Constitution
-Once a bureaucracy is in place we know it's hard to get rid of
-Let us pass whatever we want and let the Courts worry about the rest
-Why remind people we are suppose to care about it
-We do enough hard work already passing bills we don't read
These are most troubling times indeed!
It won't be hard to do
The Constitution is very broad and there are over a hundred years of legal precidence
In truth the Constitution is very specific. It is what it is regardless how many treasonous 'judges' claim otherwise.
Try reading it
So, what is your problem with 'doing it right the first time'?Comrades,
This is most upsetting to me! How dare anyone question the supremacy of the state or of its' authority.
Who do these racist, misogynist, xenophobe, right wingers think they are?
Stating with the new congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.
Needless to say, this is most upsetting to those of us on the progressive side for several reasons:
-how degrading that we must defer to the Constitution
-Once a bureaucracy is in place we know it's hard to get rid of
-Let us pass whatever we want and let the Courts worry about the rest
-Why remind people we are suppose to care about it
-We do enough hard work already passing bills we don't read
These are most troubling times indeed!
what a stupid rule.
it isn't for congress to determine constitutionality it is for the courts.
....
Without judicial review there would be no way to judge the constitutionality of laws. Period.
Article III Section 2 states: Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,
Courts review and interpret laws. SCOTUS was given the power over "all cases, in law and equity." No doubt exists SCOTUS had the constitutional authority to review Marbury.
Again I guess the framers made a poor assumption of people's ability to understand the english language.
Cripes you bolded and italicized it Jake and you STILL didn't get it right. 'judicial power shall extend to all cases. A piece of legislation is not a case, therefore SCOTUS has no power over it and NO authority to review it until a case is forwarded contesting it.
Aside from the fact that this is incorrect.... So?Without judicial review there would be no way to judge the constitutionality of laws. Period.
Yes. The court, in Marbury, who granted the power to themselves, doing so w/o any Constitutional authority to that effect.Obviously there were greater legal minds than yours who decided it should be granted.
Aside from the fact that this is incorrect.... So?Without judicial review there would be no way to judge the constitutionality of laws. Period.
That something might be a good idea in no way excuses the fact that there's no Constitutional power that grants it.
Yes. The court, in Marbury, who granted the power to themselves, doing so w/o any Constitutional authority to that effect.Obviously there were greater legal minds than yours who decided it should be granted.
