Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall and President Thomas Jefferson had different ideas about who should be the final arbiter of the Constitutionality of the laws passed by Congress. It was the opinion of Thomas Jefferson, that the people through their representatives in their state legislatures should determine whether or not a law violated the Constitution. Jefferson reasoned that since the states and the people enjoyed a position of superiority over the central government they should have the final word.
Chief Justice John Marshall believed that the Justices on the Supreme Court were better qualified than the people to make such important decisions. Marshall favored a much stronger central government than did Jefferson and did not trust the people to know what was in their own best interest. In Marbury Versus Madison in 1803, the principle of Judicial Review was established as a Supreme Court precedent.
Even though the authority to interpret the Constitution is not specifically delegated to the Supreme Court, Marshall usurped the authority and created a Judicial precedent that continues to this day.
Having assumed this power, the Justices on the Supreme Court have not only stolen the power from the people, they have created for themselves the ability to legislate from the bench. By rendering binding decisions they have assumed the power to amend the Constitution by interpreting it.
In Article V of the Constitution the methods for amending the Constitution are enumerated. Article V does not delegate this power to the Supreme Court. The authority to amend the Constitution is a power reserved to Congress and to the States.
You need to be a member of Constitution Club - 2020 Vision 4 America to add comments!
Replies
Even when you have the best intentions protocol should be followed before controlling the aspects of freedom. John marshal thought that the bill of rights should be contained with in the states. But Thomas Jefferson knew it should control all government policy.
Yep! at the very first a very intelligent man placed upon the Republic the burden of people reasoning the law. And today reasoning is far from its original intent.
I am with you up until the last paragraph. The last paragraph is not relevant because no one can even legitimately suggest that the supreme court has attempted to amend the constitution in their rulings on constitutionality. Sorry.