It was mechanical. Another example would be if the Congress passed a law allowing the President to serve 20 more years. Constitutional conflict on the mechanics of government.
Conversely, you have super-legislative, where you have Justice O'Connor ruling that Affirmative Action is Constitutional today, but may not be in the future if its no longer necessary. Necessity being defined by her. Her ruling had nothing to do with protecting the Constitution, but rather protecting a law from the Constitution. The developing trend to use foreign law and mandate legislative action, makes my case all the stronger.
If it were intended for the SC to have veto power, the Constitution would have required bills to go there for review before becoming law.
If it were intended for the SC to have veto power, the Constitution would have required bills to go there for review before becoming law.
The quote I gave you from Marbury was written by Chief Justice Marshall, one of the Founders. I trust him to know what was "intended" a lot more than I do you.
In contrast to OConner's jurisprudence, I'll give you some from Clarence Thomas:
"I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
There's something directly releveant to the issue at hand. Tell me what you think is wrong with it.