[Vicomte13]

Yes, let's peruse the Federalist Papers about judicial review, shall we?

Hmmmm, where should we start?...

Well, since you brought this up and said that there's "absolutely no disagreement between the Founders", I'll let you go ahead.

I'll just be content to note that the Founders were sitting on the Supreme Court in 1802 that decided Marbury v. Madison.

[GrandEagle]

The critical importance of Marbury is the assumption of several powers by the Supreme Court. One was the authority to declare acts of Congress, and by implication acts of the president, unconstitutional if they exceeded the powers granted by the Constitution. But even more important, the Court became the arbiter of the Constitution, the final authority on what the document meant. As such, the Supreme Court became in fact as well as in theory an equal partner in government, and it has played that role ever since.

Just because they assumed the power, does not mean that the Constitution grants it. There is no authority granted in the Constitution for the courts to "review" laws.
BTW, this was an excellent post. I had not read about this ruling before. However, it is much like a judge ruling that he is the jury and passing sentence. The sentence may remain, but it is still not legal.
Remember, the Constitution DEFINES the roles and authority for each branch of government.

I did find reading about this ruling quite interesting. There was a great discussion in either the federalist papers or the anti-federalist papers (It has been many years so I don't remember who) about the power of the judiciary. The consensus of both the federalist and the anti-federalist was that the Congress, since elected, must be the most powerful with the executive and judicial departments behind them. Actually, the executive wasn't much more than a figurehead. But anyway, it was interesting to see the change in opinion once in power.

GE