- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 9,218
- Reaction score
- 5,860
- Location
- St. Louis MO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
I have read in several books that during the Washington Presidency, he would only veto a piece of legislation if he thought it to be unconstitutional. So during our first presidency, it seems Washington was the one to decide what was and wasn’t constitutional. Congress of course could override his veto.
It seems the framers left the question of who decides what is and isn’t constitutional open or at least ambiguous. Then Chief Justice Marshall gave us judicial review. Probably with a nation and government the size of ours today, there probably isn’t any other way than to let the SCOTUS decide what is and isn’t constitutional. But the problem is so many justices on the SCOTUS rule or decide on their political views and agenda and not on the original intent of the framers. You are correct, a retirement here, a death there and many of the laws we now consider constitutional may not have been that at all.
But I can’t see each state deciding what is or isn’t constitutional, I also do not think I would feel comfortable with congress or the president making that decision either. So by the process of elimination, we end up with the SCOTUS. Personally, I wish they would go by original intent instead of twisting words around in the constitution to suit their own political philosophy. But I really see no other way.
It seems pretty ambiguous to me on whether judicial review was intended, although I lean towards yes. Hamilton arguing for it and Yates arguing against it both seemed to believe it was in the new constitution.
I basically believe the same way that for all their flaws, the SCOTUS is probably our best option.