The Constitution did not grant to the Supreme Court the authority to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. The Doctrine of Judicial Review was a power that the court granted to itself in 1801. Chief Justice John Marshall was a political ally of Alexander Hamilton and they both believed in the notion that the Constitution had implied powers.
The Constitution was written as a rule book that the government was expected to follow. The framers of the Constitution knew that only if the Constitution was strictly obeyed could it prevent the government from abusing the rights of the people.
The states delegated to the Constitution a short list of delegated powers and anything that was not delegated to the central government was prohibited. Hamilton wanted the Constitution to be interpreted loosely so that the government could assume powers that were not specifically enumerated. Those that favored a strong central government were constrained by the Constitution in order for the Federalists to achieve their objectives they needed to sell the idea that Congress could do whatever they deemed was necessary and proper.
The framers of the Constitution wanted changes in the Constitution to be the result of the ratification of Amendments. With a loosely interpreted Constitution, Congress can circumvent the amendment process.The states created to government of the United States and were supposed to be the master. The rightful authority to interpret the meaning of the Constitution rests with the states and the people. The framers never intended to grant their employees to have the authority to amend the Constitution by misinterpreting it. Putting the court in charge of interpreting the Constitution would be like hiring a fox to guard the hen house.
My understanding of Judicial Review is that it is the key to the balance of power concept that Madison said was the "secret" of the Constitution. It allows for the Review of the Legislative Power to keep in check the congress's out of control "law making".
It comes into play after the original court case or trial. It reviews the trial court by Writ of Mandate or Prohibition which come from the English Common Law. This is how legislated bad statutes are reviewed by the judicial court. It puts the power in the hands of the people.
Thanks Keith, this really helps to clarify the issue for me.
If the name of the game is, "break rule then pay", then they, the public servants, are required to follow the rules we imposed upon them and they swore an oath to up hold. The challenge has been, how to hold them accountable when they violate their oath. I know your mission is to wake us up, because if we don't realize we are to hold them accountable, then they will run the insane asylum. The stable boy will tell us when we can ride our horse.
What tools do you employ to hold public servants accountable to their oaths? Did you see my video about the judge in my civil case who failed to swear an oath for over 3 years and the judiciary is circling the wagons around her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2b94qRA-Qo I am having a helluva of time holding them accountable.
Truth is each branch of the federal government is empowered to review--and judge--the constitutionality of each other's actions. This goes to the "separation of powers" doctrine. And, of course, the People are THE ultimate arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional. The Supreme Court has, over the years, developed a doctrine of "judicial supremacy", thus nullifying the foundational concept of Constitutional Supremacy. The federal judiciary MUST be reigned in. In no way, shape or form did our founders--not even Alexander--intend that 9 black-robed, unelected judicial oligarchs should be the sole and final judges as to what is constitutional. To have intended such authority would have flown in the face of the Constitution's foundational principles.
So how can we get this back to what it should be? How do we the people make them accountable? The Justices have been interpreting the Constitution as they see fit to appease themselves and the Liberal Progressives. Not in any way staying within the framework of the Framers context. Many cases in point, especially about 2nd Amendment issues.
Civil Disobedience, State Nullification.
And if those remedies fall short, all constitutional remedies are on the table. ALL. Without meaningful pushback (with teeth) from the States and the People, the "train of abuses" will continue unabated, in which case we have only ourselves to blame.
In short order, I will post a couple relatively research pieces I did on this particular issue. Hope it's helpful. (The articles are from my "A Patriot's Call to Action" book which was recently published.)
Isn't the obvious solution to make judges accountable is for Congress to impeach any and all judges who do not "hold their Offices during good Behavior" (Article III, Section 1)?
It sounds to me like Congress has failed to assert their authority and boot out renegade judges (ie. Circuit Judge Vaughn Walker) who override the vote of the people.
In my opinion, charges of treason for disregarding the Constitution would be appropriate. Charges of treason might also get noticed by the citizens.
Of course! But that requires a Congress which is faithful to the Constitution and respectful of the rule of law.
Congress has run amok on passing so many laws that the layman can't even comprehend. They have redundantly overstepped their power as to cause a conditional effect for people that just throw their hands up and say "whatever". The POTUS has overstepped his boundaries by pushing executive orders for every whim, when Congress has been bypassed, for many issues which should be brought before panels for review of oversight and Advisement. The States and the people should be able to have some input and discussion and vote on issues that concern National Security, Environmental impact, and giving aid to Foreign Countries who burn our flag and hate us. Then when they control the "purse", how is it that they can send Millions to fund the very terrorists that American's have been attacked by?
In his Disquisition on Government, John C. Calhoun said that when the 3 different branches of government(executive, legislative and judiciary) are united in purpose, not only will they not check each others power, their separateness will actually make them overall more powerful. In light of this, it shouldn't surprise us that Justice Marshall arrogated to himself and his fellow Supreme Court justices the power to interpret the Constitution, instead of being our servants who administer justice. Our God given inalienable rights can never be taken from us, they can only be suppressed by tyrants. The power to interpret the Constitution, always has and always will be retained by We the People. We the People includes women who are people, if women have the power to interpret the Constitution, they also have the ability to vote. Having the right knowledge and morality determine if someone will use their vote in the right way, not gender. Without the right knowledge and morality, the most logical Spock like man, will not use his vote in the right way.
AMEN! Suggest you all and encourage others, to send a letter to the Editor delineating this comment and also the one of Keith's; often, you cannot have more than a number of words, so we just have to smart and get the message as full as possible with the least number of words; or if you have others in your group, a friend, a pastor, teacher, etc. have them send in another comment based on comments here. TY
Yes Steve, but at least he will be sure to vote with his mind and his logic not just with his heart as is the tendency of women in general. Human nature cannot be denied. Nurturing is a female trait. Its great for part of dual parenting and and a well adjusted child, but makes for a lousy way to decide laws. They were just going with the odds Steve.
Yes Morton, God has created us different, besides nurturing, women are team players. According to the 5th Commandment, the basic unit of government is a married man and woman. When a nation enjoys the blessings of ordered liberty, there is little government other then this. It is only when people are rebellious and want a king(big government), that the curse of big government becomes people's lot in life. Considering that women could not vote for most of our history, it would be difficult to blame them for the predicament that we find ourselves in, though they are probably part of the solution. I would rather have women who follow a heart that loves the cause of freedom, then men who have reasoned themselves into slavery.