Saturday, February 13, 2010

Criticisms of Judicial Review

Check out my newest post at the Humble Libertarian in which I criticze the concept of juducial review.

It begins:

On February 24, 1803, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down arguably the most important decision in its entire history—Marbury v. Madison. It was Chief Justice John Marshall—a Hamiltonian and no fan of limited government—who provided the opinion, which would change the face of the Court and its power forever.

The ruling itself is not what makes this case so significant. Rather, it is the power that the Court assumed while delivering this ruling that begs our attention—the power of judicial review. To most, the concept of judicial review is nothing controversial. Why would it be? Judicial review is merely the practice of the judicial branch overturning legislative and executive action it deems unconstitutional. In fact, a number of courts throughout the democratic world have this power expressly noted in their foundational documents. So what is the big deal?

First, the Constitution allows for no such judicial power. In fact, I am certain it forbids such power. Second, it is a dangerous doctrine that eats away at the very heart of our system of checks and balances. (Read the rest here.)


  1. Dude your are a complete idiot!! You should really take a closer look at the Constitution. Article VI gives the Supreme Court the authority to review the decisions of state courts. Futhermore, article VI says that the Constitution and all federal statutes and treaties "Shall be supreme law of the land."
    The American Judiciary has the power to decide whether the acts of the Executive and Legislative Branches of government are in conflict with the Constitution and, if so, to declare them void. These are the powers of Judicial Review, and its existance makes the courts, especially the Supreme court, important actors in the American Governmental System.
    Article VI in my opinion is the backbone of the system of the Checks and Balances.

  2. You are completely misreading and misapplying the text. I would display how, but since you came right out of the gate calling me an "idiot," I will not waste my time on you. I'll just say this: If I am an idiot, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are both idiots. They hold the same position as I do in regard to judicial review.

  3. First off I want to start out with...if it wasnt for judicial review there would be no one to review the stupidity that some of the presidents have tried to impose...if it wasnt for judicial review there would be no impeachment of presidents; congress could do whatever they pleased and there would, again, be nothing to stand in their way...the american people who not be living in a free nation!