[bvw]

It's common to not carefully distinquish clear Constitutional mandate from historically claimed mandate, and both of those from current practise.

First off, in the Constitution, the Courts are NOT given that mandate. The scope of judicial power is specified:

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In the Constitution, itself, no one is named as the final arbitrator of Constitutionality. Why? because like the rest of the balance of powers innoculative princible, so too was the right and duty to interpret Constitutionality. As Jackson said -- "bring their army!" (Paraphrased.)

The maxim that the US Supreme Court is the master of the Constitution is, in a way, challenged by that exceptions clause you mention. In that it almost appears -- a suggestion -- that it is Congress who is supreme. Yet even that is not so, for the very first words are "We, the People" -- the People are in the first by initial charter, and in the last by the continuation of their sufferance for it, or parts of it -- the bottom line masters of the Constitution.

And we have the States and the Executive also, as claimants to that authority at the same masterly tier -- so they are! The Civil War showed both in their Master's Robe. Where were the Court's armies? None! The Court survived because the Executive, as Commander-in-Chief, and its forces bested some of the States in vicious, long combat. At any time -- as the length and blood of that War makes clear -- it could have gone for the States. The point being made resoundingly. The National Executive and the States are both at equal level in determining Constitutionality.

Today in our silly and amoral times, the Court is ascendant, by the insane actions and inactions of the Natonal Legislature and the States and the go-along-ism of the Executive. The People -- they are coddled, sheeple, shy. But in a few weeks -- that's all it would take -- they could rise up like lions asserting every masterly perogative like a Tidal Wave asserts its perogative over a city by the sea.

Such few weeks would be tumultuous -- full of terror and horror and calamity to cause the People to so rise up. Would that they be able to rise up sans the physical and emotional terrors and rather on the basis of refined spirituality, morality and intellect.

They would form a Convention -- by the Constitution or without it -- and either take it back into the Founder's ideals for it, or cast a new one.

We have seen when the State legislatures pass consenting proclamations -- that is how we have modified the Constitution to date. We have not yet experienced a Constitutional Convention besides the first, that of the initial charter. Yet without such a national meeting we will fall into tyranny, decay, and death as a nation.

[Publius]

But in a few weeks -- that's all it would take -- they could rise up like lions asserting every masterly perogative like a Tidal Wave asserts its perogative over a city by the sea.

Unfortunately the Executive has access to a large standing army that would follow its orders without question. It has access to nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry. It can take over the broadcast media at the flick of a switch, place soporific and hallucinogenic drugs in the water supply of a rebellious area and turn off its power.

Such few weeks would be tumultuous -- full of terror and horror and calamity to cause the People to so rise up.

And the Executive would put it down in the name of the People, as it did in Waco, with the Establishment Media cheering every bombing run.

Back in 1999 I wrote a cautionary satirical tale about the chaos that would result upon President Hillary Rodham’s move against the last vestiges of the Constitution. It was Transcript of ABC’s “This Week” for February 4, 2007. Most of it out of date, but it will give you an idea of how it would happen.

We have not yet experienced a Constitutional Convention besides the first, that of the initial charter.

Check out ”A Convention for Proposing Amendments…as Part of This Constitution”.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Judicial review was not an innovation of the Marshall Court.
It was used against legislative acts by the State courts. One of H's first important legal cases was Weddington vs Rutgers wherein his argument helped convince a NY City court that the state law was unconstitutional years before the US Constitution was written. It was also used by the Court prior to Marshall.

Without the SC as final arbiter there can be no such thing as a Law of the Land. It could be replaced by 50+ different laws resulting in chaos.

Jackson's remark was unworthy of a President and showed his tendency to set himself above the law. Obviously the Court was set away from armies by design. It was believed to be outside the realm of politics altogether.

The People are supreme over the constitution but only in its ability to amend it NOT interprete it. What would you have a plebiscite to decide legal questions? This was the very thing which the founders wanted to avoid at all costs particularly Madison and Hamilton. It would mean no rights for minorities at all.

I don't quite know what to make of the rest of your post but the prospect of a new CC is not one I would welcome. Our people are as deadheaded a bunch as one could find at anytime in history or on the earth. It would be taken over by the Left as sure as I am sitting here and produce an unmitigated diasaster I have no doubt.

People who frequent FR are at the extreme of political beliefs/understanding/knowledge. We are surrounded by ignorance on a scale that is unimaginable in a population almost completely in the control of the RATmedia. They know nothing and believe the most ridiculous of things. Many polls have demonstrated that if there were a vote on the Bill of Rights it would be voted down in a landslide.

This is a nation which is throwing away its birthright with both hands due to the excessive democracy which Hamilton warned us of so often and so eloquently.