The Supreme Court and Judicial Review
Should the Supreme Court's power of judicial review be strictly limited by a constitutional amendment?
Yes, the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review should be strictly limited to the constitution; because their judicial power is in all cases, in law and equity, arising under the constitution. Meaning they are over stepping their initial jurisdiction and have been given the power to have judicial reviews, even though it’s unconstitutional.
The only power the Supreme Court is supposed to have is; all cases affecting ambassadors, or the public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party in the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction as stated in article III section 2 of the constitution. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the weakest of the three branches of government. The legislative, and executive branches are supposed to control the judiciary branch, even the states are supposed to have more say than the court. But they have been made more powerful and they are telling the legislative and executive branches what to do. There is no such system of checks and balances any more that protect the states and people when most government branches, are acting in cohorts with one another, eroding and destroying the rights and powers of the states and we the people. Even if the system was working right; who is watching and how will they stop the court from being unconstitutional? Every time the court holds judicial review it commits unconstitutional law, for which there is no recourse’s available. Because the nine justices are appointed, not elected in to office and can only be removed from office for bad behavior. Even though it has happened in the past; today’s day and age it less likely that any one of them will be removed, it’s more like a lifetime appointment (Michelsen, 2010).
I believe that if the...