Bull**** last ditch effort to win an argument you are clearly losing alert!
Face it, the constitution is silent on judicial review (conersely it is not silent on speech or religion, though it is silent on emails. Whether arms refers to semi automatic firearms we will have to wait and see what the supreme court decides that word means). Grafting on judicial review later was an act of interpretation which, as we know by way of modern semiotic theory, always involves changing the text. Judicial review was added later and that's ok, that's how law works. Your bull**** attempt to create an originalist argument for judicial review is very Scalia-esque, and just like Scalia's arguments it is utter bull**** that flies in the race of modern understandings of meaning and textual interpretation. Only a fool would say that the constitution contains judicial review.
Article VI states explicity that "this constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme Law of the Land". This Supremacy clause establishes that whenever state law conflicts with either the constitution or with federal laws passed by Congress, state law must yield.
In Article 3. Section 1. Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Article 3. Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution.
I posted this earlier, perhaps you need to "review" it.
Marbury vs Madison.
The Supreme Court has the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and therefore void.
It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each. If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. The landmark decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.
Under the Constitution, the SCOTUS is mostly supposed to hear appeals,. not to act as a trial court in cases such as Marbury's. Instead, Chief Justice Marshall pointed to a statutue authorizing the SCOTUS to issue the kind of remedy that Marbury sought, a "writ of mandamus" ordering government officials to perform their legal duties. By enacting that statute, Marshall's opinion reasoned, Congress had attempted to give the SCOTUS jurisdiction to act as a trial court in every case in which one party sought a writ of mandamus. In the view of most commentators, this was a clear misreading of the statute.
With the question framed in this way, Marshall answered it easily, by giving the ruling for which Marbury is famous: It would defeat the purposes of a written Constitution if the courts had to enforce unconstitutional statutes. The courts must exercise judicial review because the Constitution is law, and it is the essence of the judicial function "to say what law is".
Do you understand what that decision meant, or is it too obscure for you? Marshall could not violate the constitution by ruling on the case because the Supreme Court is an Appellate Court. SCOTUS had no jurisdiction to make a ruling. In order to adhere to the Constitution, Judicial Review was established. No previous case had forced that. The very structure of the Constitution required it. Marshall could either violate the Constitution or establish a precedent for judicial review. And that established the power of the Court as an equal branch of government.
