Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (6725)	7/3/2003 11:22:01 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 7720

That's why we the founding fathers gave us the Supremes, who aren't subject to the passions of the voters, to carry the Constitution's water whether the voters like it or not, Well, in fact, that's not why the founding fathers gave us the Supremes. If you read Article III, you won't find a single word about interpreting the Constitution. You will simply find judicial power with several enumerations. In fact, many of the founders specifically warned about a potentially too powerful court, but others said it would be only one co-equal branch of government. It was not until 1803, in the case of Marbury vs. Madison, that John Marshall, perhaps the most activist justice the nation has ever seen, declared the doctrine that it was the prerogative of the Court to say what the Constitution meant. Many commentators have, correctly, pointed out that Marshall's opinion is not the only option, nor perhaps even the one intended by the framers. Marshall had strong political reasons for asserting the supremacy of the Court, not the least that it favored his political party, the Federalists (and yes, Marshall was very much a political figure). I can't get into the whole deal here, but if you're interested, the first two chapters of Laurence Tribe's "American Constitutional Law" provide a good overview of the varioius options that were open to the founders and the early years of the Court, and a wee bit about why Marshall had a strong incentive to assert control of the meaning of the Constitution in the Court. And because this was happening at a crucial time of political infighting within the legislative and executive branches, those branches couldn't muster the impetus to challenge the Court on this decision. So, right or wrong, the view was allowed to stand, and has stood since, although it is by no means necessarily the right decision.