Thom Hartmann: Democratic Underground Readers are Wrong on SCOTUS

[LBJ Liberal]

57. Article 6, Section and Implied Powers for Judicial Review.

Mr. Hartman,

On the March 28th show you asked your listeners to read the Constituion and cite where in the document that judicial review is mentioned in the document. Your request is specious. There is no enumerated power and you knew that when you challenged your audience. I could ask where is the president's cabinet mentioned in the Constitution? Where is the FDA, SEC, FCC, mentioned? They are not enumerated either but they are implied, resulting and inherent powers. All cabinet secretaries and regulatory agencies were implemented to assist the executive and legislative branches perform their respective responsibilities as delineated in the Constituion.

I submit, therefore that the justification behind judicical review is that it too is an implied power and probably an inherent power. With this in mind, my reasoning is that the Constitution is law, that it is the duty of courts to interpret the law in order to decide cases in accordance with it, and that therefore the Supreme Court has the authority and indeed is duty-bound to interpret the Constituion, and of course to prefer to it to any law. I would further add that the Constitution enjoins the courts to enforce the Constitution as the supreme law of the land (Article 6, Section 2), only those acts of Congress that are in "pursuance of the Constitution".

There are of course arguments against the above and the essence of Chief Justice Marshall's logic, but I've furnished you an article and section written within the Constitution and the justification for judicial review.