Apparently your reading comprehension skills are lacking. You must be Canadian Joe's son!
While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.
"From the time of the ratification of the Constitution to the mid 1930s, it was widely understood that the Constitution granted Congress only limited powers, notwithstanding the Commerce Clause. Moreover, there was no question that activities wholly separated from business, such as gun possession were beyond the reach of commerce power. If anything, the "wrong turn" was the Courts's dramatic departure in the 1930s from a century and a half of precedent."
-- Justice Clarence Thomas
The "dramatic departure" Thomas is referring to was FDR's New Deal.
-- Justice Clarence Thomas
The "dramatic departure" Thomas is referring to was FDR's New Deal.
While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.
This is nowhere in Article III. You can't find it because it doesn't exist.
The Supreme Court interprets new laws as they apply to the iron clad Constitution, not the Constitution itself. There is a difference between the two. Just because you aren't intelligent enough to understand it doesn't mean nobody else can either.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you
The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
"Preserve, protect and defend" a document he believes to be "imperfect that reflects some deep flaws in American culture"????
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Anyone who voted for this fraud and trusted him to uphold the oath of office needs their head examined.
Here's what Jefferson said about the doctrine of judicial review:
You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
And Abraham Lincoln during his first inaugural address:
"[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes"
You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
And Abraham Lincoln during his first inaugural address:
"[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes"
akfagdrunk doesn't get it, Joe. This flew over his head by about 30 yards like one of Andy Dalton's off-target missiles last night. He has no conception whatsoever about what the forefathers intended for this country or the principles upon which we were founded. Whenever progressives scream that central planning should provide things like education, social security, welfare, whatever for its citizens...to me, it's like listening to a loud ambulance siren that says "I don't understand a damn thing about this country's origins."
This is what I meant when I said Progressivism, by definition, is post-constitutional. Pretty much everything aaaktard believes is illegal.
When 'Progressives' say "living and breathing document" they don't mean the amendment process. They mean interpreting laws according to their personal values and beliefs, then shopping for the right judges who will rubber-stamp their radical agenda.
The left has the same level of contempt and disdain for the supreme law of the land and its free people ("they cling to their guns and religion") as Patriotic Americans have for the left's self-anointed, sanctimonious kings and queens ("educated people making intelligent, informed decisions").
1) the founders established checks and balances, something Obama has circumvented more than any other president ever
2) Harry Reid is (was) sitting on an unprecedented amount of legislation, much of which was passed by his own party. So the senate leader was the single biggest obstructionist in the country, presumably at the calling of his president (oh the irony)
3) Obama used his super majority to ram his stimilis package down our throats, a complete and utter failure that harmed Americans
4) Obama used his super majority to ram Obamacare down our throats, a complete and utter failure that harmed Americans
5) Obama espoused and attained higher energy costs, this harmed Americans
6) Obama regulated banking and businesses, this harmed Americans
7) Obama increased taxes, this harmed Americans
8) Obama increased the costs of doing business, this harmed Americans
9) Obama made himself an international laughing stock, this harmed Americans
10) Obama used racism and class warfare to divide the country, this harmed Americans
Once again the child proves how incredibly naive he is. I wonder where on earth he came up with that being so intelligent narrative? His mommy must have really pumped him up
2) Harry Reid is (was) sitting on an unprecedented amount of legislation, much of which was passed by his own party. So the senate leader was the single biggest obstructionist in the country, presumably at the calling of his president (oh the irony)
3) Obama used his super majority to ram his stimilis package down our throats, a complete and utter failure that harmed Americans
4) Obama used his super majority to ram Obamacare down our throats, a complete and utter failure that harmed Americans
5) Obama espoused and attained higher energy costs, this harmed Americans
6) Obama regulated banking and businesses, this harmed Americans
7) Obama increased taxes, this harmed Americans
8) Obama increased the costs of doing business, this harmed Americans
9) Obama made himself an international laughing stock, this harmed Americans
10) Obama used racism and class warfare to divide the country, this harmed Americans
Once again the child proves how incredibly naive he is. I wonder where on earth he came up with that being so intelligent narrative? His mommy must have really pumped him up
^^^^^^^
now I know people living below poverty lines may disagree with me, but at least they don't pretend to understand anything and high school dropouts certainly don't pretend to be educated
they just be wanting your stuff
now I know people living below poverty lines may disagree with me, but at least they don't pretend to understand anything and high school dropouts certainly don't pretend to be educated
they just be wanting your stuff
