12
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 6:
Line 6: + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:American History Lecture Four (view source)
Revision as of 21:37, September 29, 2008
, 21:37, September 29, 2008→Marshall Court: Agree on Principle, Disagree on Specifics: new section
Might I request that someone sticks a category on this? The lock is messing with my categorization binge.--[[User:Jimmyz|Jimmyz]] 00:13, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
Might I request that someone sticks a category on this? The lock is messing with my categorization binge.--[[User:Jimmyz|Jimmyz]] 00:13, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
== Marshall Court: Agree on Principle, Disagree on Specifics ==
Aschlafly, I came across this site by way of the "evolution" article. I liked it, and I've since found that we share a lot of views; I just signed up for an account, now, and I'm glad to be here.
However, I do disagree with your characterization of the Marshall Court. Surely Marshall's creation of judicial review later came to be abused by today's judiciary (Scalia's dissent in Boumediene was possibly the best "calling out" we'll get against the activist bench; too bad it was only a dissent), but I think you're wrong on two points. First, Marshall didn't so much create judicial review as activate it. It's arguably well-founded in the Constitution (otherwise, the Supremacy Clause would be nothing more than a dead letter) and the Framers in debates seemed to recognize that the Supreme Court would be able to look after the Constitution. And second, the Supreme Court has long had checks & balances on it, apart from political figures simply ignoring it (which I cannot approve, no matter which party does it). Namely, the Court can have its jurisdiction withdrawn by the Exceptions clause, subject to Article III's internal & external limitations, and the Court, of course, can only adjudicate issues which present a "case or controversy." The Standing limitation & the exceptions "check," at least, present two Congressional balances on judicial authority.
That said, if the Court's judicial review power was correct ab initio, we don't disagree that it's run amok in recent years :).
I'd be happy to add information to the Marbury section if you'd like. The history behind it is really quite fascinating, as you no doubt know.-[[User:CMarius|CMarius]]