Supreme Court Power of Judicial Review - Unconstitutional

Yet your claim of Marbury v Madison as being the case as to when the SCOTUS usurped power is indeed incorrect. As I showed previously, Congress was going to allow SCOTUS more power than the USC constituted to SCOTUS. Justice Marshall ruled the Judiciary Act of 1789 (sec 13 ) unconstitutional.

By Marshall stating that Sec 13 was unconstitutional he limited SCOTUS to only its role as per the USC, not the added role Congress wanted to place upon them outside of the USC.

So, didn't Marshall then strictly adhere to the USC by not allowing the additional powers as granted by Congress? It looks more like Marshall didn't usurp anything and kept SCOTUS within the confines of the USC all along.

 

There is no way to make this work perfectly.

You either subjugate the Judiciary to the Legislature (ie effectively no Constitution), as in Civil Law, or make the Legislature subject to Judicial review (gives power over whether laws can be enforced based on the interpretations of 9 people), which is what you do under Common Law in British-influenced countries.

Neither is perfect, however at least the later allows you to protect rights and other things in a permanent written document (ironic since the British do not have one) that the government can't override with another law. However, for the system to work you must pick your judges very, very carefully. Luckily the SCOTUS is not full of ideologue imbiciles or hotheads, they're fine.

When your judges go bad, your democracy is doomed. Pick well, always.

 

Outside of underwriters lab, self policing agencies have a very bad track record. I will give one big example, Standard and Poore's and Moody's. These independent rating agencies rated financial securities that were traded in the markets, in the run up to 2008 they gave triple A ratings to many of the securities that were being sold by the big banks, when in fact those securities didn't merit junk bond level ratings. This led to nearly 17 trillion in losses in the markets. In the field of self regulation, Underwriter's is the case that prove's the rule, you cannot trust the fox to guard the henhouse.

 

How did Marshall "take" power? I was under the impression that although he ruled that withholding Marbury's commission was unconstitutional, he didn't "order" anything, or "take" any power.

 

I do not agree with your interpretation. Nowhere in either the U.S. Constitution or any amendment are the words "The Supreme Court shall determine the constitutionality of law" or any kind of directive that they should have power over the Legislative or Executive branch. The power of judicial review was left to the States in the 10th amendment. It is clear that States had the authority to nullify federal law as many States did indeed nullify the fugitive slave laws. Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln are correct in their assessment that there are four branches of government not just three - Article's I, II, III, & IV. The power of the Supreme Court is limited to the enumerated powers listed in Article III to settle disputes between parties. There is no such thing as precedent under the Constitution.

 

There are literally no legal or constitutional scholars that agree with you.

 

Settling suits between State parties and the general government is one function of the Judicature. Here is what our Founding Fathers argued for ratification of our supreme law of the land:

 

And yet it is not my interpretation, it is exactly what happened as per the court documents.

Art 3 Sec 2 grants it.

Again it is art 3 sec 2 that does it, not the 10th amendment.

Art 6 and the Supremacy Clause state otherwise.

Please provide a link to this claim as I can not find one.

Precedent is in law, it is a principle or rule established in a legal case that is either binding or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Its part of the common law system and has been for decades, maybe even centuries.

 

Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson were both constitutional scholars. They both predicted what would happen if the Supreme Court were given that much power and here we are in the 21st century with the Supreme Court making the claim that people being forced to pay health insurance companies a monthly fee is constitutional. If Obamacare was really constitutional then why didn't the founders force universal health insurance on the people 225 years ago? If universal health insurance was the original intent then they would have done it right from the start.

U.S. Constitution
Article I - Legislative
Article II - Executive
Article III - Judicial
Article IV - States

 

You clearly fail to understand art 4 sec 1, or sec 3.

Provide the link(s) showing Jefferson and Lincoln assessing 4 branches of govt.

Here's a quote from Jefferson agreeing with Justice Marshall http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_18s16.html

This shows your quotes of Jefferson to be out of context in the OP and throughout the topic.

 

And neither agreed with you.

.
They've had that power since the USC was ratified.

?
Because there was no such thing as health insurance

.
Again, there was no such thing as health insurance

 

I agree with them. Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson fully understood the U.S. Constitution.

Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson didn't believe that. They both believed that if the Supreme Court Justices, who were appointed for life, would fundamentally change the original intent of the constitution.

Which the Supreme Court has done. They have made the Constitution a mere thing of wax which they twist and shape into any form they please.

Health insurance was not needed because health costs were affordable.

 

Our federal Congress is only delegated the social Power to legislate, "in all cases whatsoever" in the federal districts. Otherwise, there are specific enumerations of Terms that comprise our supremest law of the land.

 

The quote you are claiming attribute to Jefferson is actually from a letter to William Charles Jarvis in which Jefferson is discussing a copy of a book, the Republican, from Jarvis. http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/jefferson/jarvis.html

This letter shows the ignorance to your claims and your quotes being taken out of context. It even shows that Jefferson only assessed 3 branches of government, not 4 as you claim.

 

neither of them agreed with you.

no they didn't.

no they haven't.

which is why your statement was incorrect.

 

I believe the several States merely need to better secure their rights under our Tenth Amendment; if it isn't specifically enumerated, it doesn't exist.

 

Here is something from The Federalist Papers, number 78:

Here is our "mission statement":

 

Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr. does a great job of explaining how the Constitution is supposed to work in America.

The Purse & The Sword

 

The right may disagree.

 

Yet with your claims of an art 5 convention and a few other things, you go against the very things Dr. Vieira states. ENFORCEMENT, NOT AMENDMENT, IS THE ANSWER

 

I have not made the claims you accuse me of making. I have been stating from the beginning in the OP that the Supreme Court does not have the power of judicial review and nothing needs to be done except to strictly obey the Constitution.

 

Yet you linked to the Article V web site, twice.

 

I would prefer for anyone who works for me in a specialized skill area to be certified by a private entity involved in establishing standards. The government? Not so much.

 

"It is not a Constitutional Convention. It is a convention of the states to propose amendments.
You long since lost your freedom. At the moment you are blissfully unaware."

You may continue to be comforted by your illusion of freedom for yet a little while.
And then it will all end. You will cry when you become wise.

 

I may have missed it, but can you explain again the powers the SCOTUS does have, if not judicial review? I can't just agree with you that the entire third Article is superfluous. I'm not seeing the power of judicial review that you seem to see. First, the judges only decide, and there are only 9 of them. Other fed court judges are subject to removal by Congress (I think). Once SCOTUS decides, it requires the executive to enforce their decisions. Second, the executive can appoint more judges through Congress approval as another check on SCOTUS. To me, the judiciary appears to be the weakest of the branches.