Seems Jefferson disagrees with you.
"You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the sedition law. But nothing in the Constitution has given them a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment; because that power was placed in their hands by the Constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it; because that power has been confided to him by the Constitution. That instrument meant that its co-ordinate branches should be cheeks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."
Washington too.
The first use of this Constitutional power was by Washington, who, on the 5th April, 1792, vetoed the "Representation Bill," which originated in the House of Representatives. As this, from its priority, is an event worthy of extended notice, we give the circumstances of the case, as briefly related by Jefferson, then secretary of state:--
"April 6th. The President called on me before breakfast, and first introduced some other matter, then fell on the Representation Bill, which he had now in his possession for the 10th day. I had before given him my opinion, in writing, that the method of apportionment was contrary to the Constitution. He agreed that it was contrary to the common understanding of that instrument, and to what was understood bill the time by the makers of it; that yet it would bear the construction which the bill put; and he observed that the vote for and against the bill was perfectly geographical--a northern against a southern vote--and he feared he should be thought to be taking side with a southern party. I admitted the motive of delicacy, but that it should not induce him to do wrong, and urged the dangers to which the scramble for the fractionary members would always lead. He here expressed his fear that there would, ere long, be a separation of the Union; that the public mind seemed dissatisfied, and tending to this. He went home, sent for Randolph, the attorney-general, desired him to get Mr. Madison immediately, and come to me; and if we three concurred in opinion, that he would negative the bill. He desired to hear nothing more about it, but that we would draw up the instrument for him to sign. They came;--our minds had been before made up;--we drew the instrument Randolph carried it to him, and told him we all concurred in it He walked with him to the door, and, as if he still wished to get off, he said, "And you say you approve of this yourself?" "Yes, sir," says Randolph; "I do, upon my honor." He sent it to the House of Representatives instantly. A few of the hottest friends of the bill expressed passion, but the majority were satisfied, and both in and out of doors it gave pleasure to have at length an instance of the negative being exercised. Written this, the 9th April."
United States, April 5, 1792.
Gentlemen of the House of Representatives: I have maturely considered the Act passed by the two Houses, intitled, "An Act for an apportionment of Representatives among the several States according to the first enumeration,"44 and I return it to your House, wherein it originated, with the following objections.
[Note 44: On April 6 the "Apportionment Bill," as it was called, was reconsidered in the light of the President's veto and failed to pass over the same. This is recorded in the Annals of Congress of that date. A digest of the opinions of the Secretaries of State, Treasury, and War, and of the Attorney General on the constitutionality of the bill, in the writing of Tobias Lear, is in the Washington Papers filed at the end of April, 1792.]
First: The Constitution has prescribed that Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States, according to their respective Numbers: and there is no one proportion or division which, applied to the respective numbers of the States, will yield the number and allotment of Representatives proposed by the bill.
Second. The Constitution has also provided that the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand: which restriction is, by the context, and by fair and obvious construction, to be applied to the seperate and respective numbers of the States: and the bill has allotted to eight of the States more than one for thirty thousand.45
[Note 45: From the "Letter Book" copy in theWashington Papers.]
From michigander:
unless you've found something in the Constitution that I haven't seen, the job of deciding constitutionality of bills IS the job of the United States Supreme Court
Seems Jefferson disagrees with you.
"You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the sedition law. But nothing in the Constitution has given them a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment; because that power was placed in their hands by the Constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it; because that power has been confided to him by the Constitution. That instrument meant that its co-ordinate branches should be cheeks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."
Washington too.
The first use of this Constitutional power was by Washington, who, on the 5th April, 1792, vetoed the "Representation Bill," which originated in the House of Representatives. As this, from its priority, is an event worthy of extended notice, we give the circumstances of the case, as briefly related by Jefferson, then secretary of state:--
"April 6th. The President called on me before breakfast, and first introduced some other matter, then fell on the Representation Bill, which he had now in his possession for the 10th day. I had before given him my opinion, in writing, that the method of apportionment was contrary to the Constitution. He agreed that it was contrary to the common understanding of that instrument, and to what was understood bill the time by the makers of it; that yet it would bear the construction which the bill put; and he observed that the vote for and against the bill was perfectly geographical--a northern against a southern vote--and he feared he should be thought to be taking side with a southern party. I admitted the motive of delicacy, but that it should not induce him to do wrong, and urged the dangers to which the scramble for the fractionary members would always lead. He here expressed his fear that there would, ere long, be a separation of the Union; that the public mind seemed dissatisfied, and tending to this. He went home, sent for Randolph, the attorney-general, desired him to get Mr. Madison immediately, and come to me; and if we three concurred in opinion, that he would negative the bill. He desired to hear nothing more about it, but that we would draw up the instrument for him to sign. They came;--our minds had been before made up;--we drew the instrument Randolph carried it to him, and told him we all concurred in it He walked with him to the door, and, as if he still wished to get off, he said, "And you say you approve of this yourself?" "Yes, sir," says Randolph; "I do, upon my honor." He sent it to the House of Representatives instantly. A few of the hottest friends of the bill expressed passion, but the majority were satisfied, and both in and out of doors it gave pleasure to have at length an instance of the negative being exercised. Written this, the 9th April."
United States, April 5, 1792.
Gentlemen of the House of Representatives: I have maturely considered the Act passed by the two Houses, intitled, "An Act for an apportionment of Representatives among the several States according to the first enumeration,"44 and I return it to your House, wherein it originated, with the following objections.
[Note 44: On April 6 the "Apportionment Bill," as it was called, was reconsidered in the light of the President's veto and failed to pass over the same. This is recorded in the Annals of Congress of that date. A digest of the opinions of the Secretaries of State, Treasury, and War, and of the Attorney General on the constitutionality of the bill, in the writing of Tobias Lear, is in the Washington Papers filed at the end of April, 1792.]
First: The Constitution has prescribed that Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States, according to their respective Numbers: and there is no one proportion or division which, applied to the respective numbers of the States, will yield the number and allotment of Representatives proposed by the bill.
Second. The Constitution has also provided that the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand: which restriction is, by the context, and by fair and obvious construction, to be applied to the seperate and respective numbers of the States: and the bill has allotted to eight of the States more than one for thirty thousand.45
[Note 45: From the "Letter Book" copy in theWashington Papers.]
Roe v Wade
Brady Bill
Civil Rights legislation
The war powers act
All of which were passed by congress or decided in the courts as Roe v. Wade. If Jefferson’s views were really what the Founders meant by the "separation of powers” then two things would happen. Every piece of legislation the congress passed would be immune from judicial review because by definition, if they passed the law they had declared it constitutional. And the President could simply, on taking office, declare all laws he did not like unconstitutional and that would be the end of it. At that point, there would be NO need for a USSC that the constitution invests the power to decide the constitutional soundness of legislation on the basis of both fact AND law and no need for the Judicial Branch of the governmental triad put into place by the founders.