That is precisely the issue. I invite you to cite the article, section, and clause of the Constitution that delegates to the court the final say in constitutional interpretation.
Article III Sec 1 & 2 delegates the judicial Power to the USSC.
Final say? Thats BS, -- 'we the people' have final say.
Thomas Jefferson couldn't find it, James Madison couldn't find it - and I doubt Thomas Paine could have found it, either. Have at it..
Funny, it was easy to find. I suspect you're hyping the situation. Why is that? <
Here's a bit of what Marshall said in 1803:
"It is emphatically the province and 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 that rule.
If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.
So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law;
the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If, then, the 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.
Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that the courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory.
It would declare that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions -- a written constitution -- would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction.
But the peculiar expressions of the constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.
The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution...."
______________________________________
John, you really should study Marshalls opinion, if you intend to dispute it.
Funny - I don't see any mention of 'exclusive constitutional review.' Which clause are you looking at?
Final say? Thats BS, -- 'we the people' have final say.
What, exactly, are you arguing? You suggest that Mr. Justice Scalia is "wrong" when he states:
"The Constitution of the United States nowhere says that the Supreme Court shall be the last word on what the Constitution means. Or that the Supreme Court shall have the authority to disregard statutes enacted by the congress of the United States on the ground that in its view they do not comport with the Constitution."
Sorry, sport, but "Article III Sec 1 & 2" don't contradict Mr. Justice Scalia's statement - unless, perhaps, you adopt the circular argument that 'limited judicial review constitutes exclusive and final constitutional review because limited judicial review is equivalent to exclusive and final constitutional review.'
;>)
Funny, it was easy to find. I suspect you're hyping the situation. Why is that?
LOL! "Easy to find?" Put it in print, my friend: quote the constitutional article, section and clause that delegate to the court the power of exclusive and final constitutional review. "Article III Sec 1 & 2" say nothing of the sort. 'I suspect you're avoiding a direct quotation. Why is that?'
;>)
Here's a bit of what Marshall said in 1803...
You claim that 'the Constitution of the United States says that the Supreme Court shall be the last word on what the Constitution means,' and that it delegates to 'the Supreme Court the authority to disregard statutes enacted by the congress of the United States on the ground that in its view they do not comport with the Constitution.' Sorry to disappoint you, but Mr. Justice Marshall's 'opinion' is not equivalent to the United States Constitution...
;>)
John, you really should study Marshalls opinion, if you intend to dispute it.
LOL! Your attempts to change the subject are really quite entertaining! I have repeatedly disputed your suggestion that the Constitution delegates the power of exclusive and final constitutional review to the court. As for Mr. Justice Marshall's opinion, it remains logically flawed: no entity can claim a power to say what the law is, and claim simultaneously to be somehow bound by that same law.
;>)