He was indeed correct. As we know, the judges now think they can make law with the doctrine of a 'living' constitution (it means what I say it means).
Discussion is locked
Every Constitutional law class begins with Marbury v. Madison. The point is, the Constitution does not specify who decides what is or is not in accord with it. If not the Supreme Court, then who does? That was essentially Marshall's argument (with concurrence of the other five justices -- the SCOTUS was originally only a 6-judge court; it was expanded to avoid the possibility of ties, and because there was a need for more circuits). Since laws are passed by the Legislative with the concurrence of the Executive (unless a veto is overridden), having the third branch responsible for determining a law's constitutionality is most in keeping with the Separation of Powers that unerlies the Constitution. And Jefferson was wrong when he said this allows a tyrannical court, because given enough consensus, the Constitution can be amended to render moot the SCOTUS decision on any point but one (bet you don't know off the top of your head the one feature of the Constitution that's not subject to amendement!)
-- Dave K.
click here to email firstname.lastname@example.org
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!