Do you think it is a problem for the Court to have such an immense power even though it is not specifically granted to them in the Constitution?
I do not feel that it is too much power for the Court to be able to exercise judicial review. In fact, I feel that judicial review allows for checks and balances in regards to the constitutionality of actions taken by the executive and legislative branches of our government.
If the origins of judicial review are not found in the Constitution, what grants the Court this power?
Although judicial review is not found in the Constitution, specifically Article 3 that describes the powers and duties of the judicial branch, it is a power based on the decision in Marbury v. Madison, 1803. In 1803 judicial review was established when the Supreme Court, for the first time, deemed that an act of Congress was unconstitutional.1
Did the framers intend the Supreme Court to possess the power of judicial review?
I do think that the framers intended for the supreme Court to possess judicial review powers, because the Constitution was framed around the ideology of checks and balances in government. Former Chief Justice Marshall stated, in the Marbury v. Madison decision, that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is…If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each. So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution… the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.”2
respond to this discussion question in 100 words