Garand Illusion wrote:
Just as a note ... the COTUS puts the power to determine constitutionality with the Supremes. Like it or not ... when they say something is constitutional it IS constitutional. Period.
I hate to break it to ya, but you will find the power of Judicial Review, nowhere within the Constitution or its amendments.
What you will find is that in 1803, the Marshall Court decided in Marbury v. Madison that it (the Court) held this power. That decision has never been revisited, for some very obvious reasons. Judges most certainly liked it (it gave them power to not simply interpret the Law, but to interpret the Constitution itself), and lawyers liked it (most of them wanted to become Judges, so yeah, they liked it alright). Very few citizens paid much attention to it... Well some people did complain, as they knew exactly what was to come... But the rest of the government was satisfied with the outcome of the ruling, and left it alone.
"The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." Thomas Jefferson.
"As the courts are generally the last in making the decision, it results to them, by refusing or not refusing to execute a law, to stamp it with its final character. This makes the Judiciary department paramount in fact to the Legislature, which was never intended, and can never be proper." James Madison.
And then there is that dead Frenchman, of whom the Founders thought had such high ideals, that they incorporated many of his ideas into the writing of our Constitution.
"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense." Frederic Bastiat.
Old Bastiat wrote a lot of things about Government. Even about unjust Law:
"When law and morality contradict one another, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his sense of morality or losing his respect for the law." Frederic Bastiat.
And then there is that man, of whom so many find a great regard:
"We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution." Abraham Lincoln.
Read those quotes carefully. They mean something, and many of you won't like what they mean.
The complete text of Article III, section 1:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
First, you will note that Judges may be removed only for offenses of "Good Behavior," whatever that is... Who decides? The Congress. We, have virtually no say. Do you really think that we can get the Congress to charge a sitting Justice with "bad behavior?" Do you really think that after such a charge of impeachment is made, that the Senate will confirm the charge? Be realistic, here.
By the time we could get enough representatives elected into office, the whole matter may well be moot. Either the Justice will have retired, or there would be such decisions made that not even the Congress could or would untangle the web. That's the reality of our current situation.
The second thing I would point out, is that the power of Judicial Review is not found in the afore mentioned article. In fact, the Constitution itself is actually silent about who has power to decide upon whether a law is constitutional or not. It was never a point with the Founders, either through neglect or thoughtlessness. Maybe. Or Maybe the Founders thought the clause was specific enough. The judicial Power, is the power to judge. That's it. It goes no further. If the Law is wrong, then it was up to a Jury to decide. Enough nullification cases, and Congress (or state legislatures) would change the law.
But... in 1803, the Supreme Court granted that power to itself... and only Jefferson and Madison are remembered enough, to have disputed that finding.
Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, Bastiat all agreed. There is only one solution for the people. That solution does not rely on Congress or the President. It does not rely upon the appointment of other Justices, who would revisit all of these bad decisions.... The reality is that most of you won't take that solution. It's simply a drastic action. Too drastic for the stomach of many, if not most.
"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." Frederick Douglass, August 4, 1857.
