General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Hey, Democratic Underground! Thom Hartmann called you out! [View all]muriel_volestrangler
(101,315 posts)while telling us, again and again, to read it; and he ignores 200 years of opinion and practice in favour of his own idiosyncratic interpretation (his quotes of Jefferson prove nothing; they don't show Jefferson saying the SC cannot strike down laws, they show Jefferson saying he fears overly-powerful courts. Yeah, well, that's our point, Thom, not yours).
This is the crux:
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority"
So when a case arises under the constitution, about the powers of the federal government to make laws, involving areas such as commerce between states, the first amendment, or the tenth amendment, then the Supreme Court has the judicial power to be the final arbiter. The constitution overrides later laws, and when there's a conflict, the SC gets to say what part of the later law is unconstitutional.
He thinks they don't have the right to strike down laws; but the vast majority of people involved in government over 2 centuries think they do, and have allowed them to do so. He seems to have mistaken his wish (or even Jefferson's wish) for a less powerful SC with the reality of what is in the Constitution, and how it has been interpreted. His constant appeals to what he thinks the first American politicians wanted are not enough to ignore the actual wording of the Constitution.