Actually, please read your Constitution and history.
Neither the Founding Fathers nor the Constitution they authored allowed the Supreme Court the exclusive right of judicial review. That was a right unilaterally seized by the court in Marbury v. Madison--and not recognized at the time, nor for many years afterward, by the other two branches of the federal government--nor by the State governments.
My point remains, our original form of government had no final authoritative interpreter...and held only the Constitution as supreme--the ACLU and liberal lawyers everywhere be anathema!
Oh, I have.
Neither the Founding Fathers nor the Constitution they authored allowed the Supreme Court the exclusive right of judicial review.
Oh, indeed they did. Although it is not a "right" but a power. And it is enshrined in the Supremacy Clause of our Constitution.
That was a right unilaterally seized by the court in Marbury v. Madison--and not recognized at the time, nor for many years afterward, by the other two branches of the federal government--nor by the State governments.
It was not recognized by the Anti-Federalists - the opponents of our Constitution. Our political Protestants, if you will.
The Federalist 80 lays out the implications and intent of the Supremacy Clause quite clearly.
My point remains, our original form of government had no final authoritative interpreter...and held only the Constitution as supreme--the ACLU and liberal lawyers everywhere be anathema!
No, the Supreme Court is quite clearly established and empowered in the US Constitution.
You can wish the Constitution away, but its provisions remain.
Without authoritative interpretation the Constitution would be a useless project - the Articles of Federation collapsed of inutility precisely because there was no court of final appeal, especially in commercial matters, but also in nothing else.
The necessity of an ultimate legal tribunal to interpret the law uniformly was one of the key goals of the Constitution in the first place.