It's implied because it isn't in the text. Which is my point. They didn't have judicial review for the first decade because the Constitution didn't give the court the right.

Wrong.

The implication was there all the time. It wasn't recognized for a while... but it WAS there.

There's a lot of "wording" in the Constitution that has to be treated... mathematically. Logically.
Like AND, NOR, NOT gates... etc.

This is one of those things that cracks me up when people taking math, say: "Why do I have to learnt this, I'll never use it".
Well in some cases, they were right. They don't use it, so they don't understand things like implication.

The people who wrote the Constitution... understood these things.

This post was edited by Ghot on Jul 26 2022 01:21pm

between 1789 and 1803 the SCOTUS practiced judicial review, as did lower courts, but it is in the opinion of Marshall in 1803 that the precedent for judicial review and justification of previous judicial review was created.

Marshall pointed out that the legislative branch and executive branch had checks on power against both each other and the court, but the court had no constitutional checks on either branch. although in order to do their duty in upholding federal law and constitutionality they needed it. and thus judicial review was created, not in practice, but in legal precedent.

Our govt. was designed from the get go to have checks and balances.
Just because it took some people IN our govt. some time to figure that out... doesn't mean it wasn't there.

It's like things being made of atoms. Just because it took us a while to figure it out, doesn't mean they weren't there all along.


The people that wrote the Constitution were.... geniuses. Literally.
They were the best and brightest. The average person then and today, can't hold a candle to them.

You have to expect it to be difficult to "understand" the wording of the Constitution... correctly.


This post was edited by Ghot on Jul 26 2022 01:28pm

Dope MISSPELLING while trying to be a typical grammar Nazi.

"Look everyone I have no actual input to the current conversation, let me try to make someone look like an idiot."

This post was edited by KeeperHalidom on Jul 26 2022 01:28pm

The people that you're saying took a while to figure it out wrote the fucking thing.

It's easy for us to realize we can't understand Schrödinger equation, for example. Because it's very high level Calculus.
But when it comes to English... we all think we're experts.

Sure we may know a pile of Urban English... a bunch of slang, etc.
But the English used to write the Constitution was like... Schrödinger equation, compared to what we walk around speaking.





This post was edited by Ghot on Jul 26 2022 01:35pm

the concepts of:

"powers explicitly outlined in the constitution" vs "powers whos justification derives from the constitution" have an important difference. The former requires ratification of the constitution to change, the latter is simply precedent.

Judicial review is clearly in the latter, its simply a case where there are little to no alternatives we could employ. as compared to say 2a which has a clear counter direction.

The latter is... implied.

Rosco is a monkey. Monkeys love to climb. Ergo... Rosco loves to climb.

The SC's job is to uphold the Constitution. In order to uphold the Constitution, judicial review is required. Ergo they MUST have judicial review.

This post was edited by Ghot on Jul 26 2022 01:39pm

Finding implied rights and powers is how we got roe and Casey. I didn't realize you were such a liberal.