undefined | Better HN

0 pointstorstenvl3y ago0 comments

It may appear that way, especially if someone doesn't make it their life's work. But although concise, it is rich in meaning.

You call out Article III, for example, so I'll focus on that. It doesn't say "we should have a Supreme Court and other courts Congress may establish." It says the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in them, and that judges shall be appointed. It isn't magisterial or clerical power. It clearly establishes the United States as a common law system. That's further reinforced by the use of the term jurisdiction — literally the power to say what the law is. It's clear that any and all courts established by Congress are "inferior" to the Supreme Court, which is a significant protection of judicial independence. It's also clear that Congress can't reduce their pay as retribution - ditto. And that's just the first section.

It's a much richer document than your previous comment gives it credit for.

0 comments

HaZeust3y ago

Your entire argument falls under when you take into consideration that the very judicial power that's "vested" to the Supreme Court in its jurisdiction is solely delegated to Judges that Congress appoints.

Congress should not get to seat its own checks and balances, and it doesn't particularly matter if Congress is only allowed to establish and ordain inferior courts to that of the Supreme Court, if they already effectively establish and ordain the Supreme Court's delegations - and thereby its power.

2 more replies

candiddevmike3y ago

It never grants them the ability to nullify laws via judicial review. That is a power they invented themselves.

torstenvlOP3y ago

Yes, it does. I think I was pretty clear about that. Help me understand where you're confused?

Is it that you don't see the linkage between the text of Article III and Marbury's famous line, "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is"? Because jurisdictio literally means "to say what the law is"

staticman23y ago

You are doing this weird thing I see on this web site at times when someones takes a court case they like and accepts whatever the judge states carte blanche. No further reading required.

The fact judicial review is not in the constitution is not controversial.

Here's what Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts web sight says:

"The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803)."

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re...

torstenvlOP3y ago

I'm not just someone "on this website," I'm a Harvard-educated lawyer in the federal government with over a decade of experience, including litigating Constitutional issues in federal district court. I assure you, there have been years and years of "further reading" and it was emphatically required.

It's a trendy take to say that judicial review isn't in the Constitution, and that may be superficially true, but it ignores two important facts that contradict that take:

(1) Article III's explicit grant of "appellate jurisdiction ... as to law"

(2) The Framers' own words in the Judiciary Act of 1789, which explicitly anticipates cases "draw[ing] in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under the United States, [where] the decision is against their validity" and reaffirms that such decisions may be "reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States."

It is very clear what "appellate jurisdiction ... as to law" in "cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made" means. And for anyone who has any lingering doubts, just look to how the Framers implemented it in the very first Judiciary Act, less than seven months after the Constitution went into effect.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

HaZeust3y ago

2 more replies

candiddevmike3y ago

It never grants them the ability to nullify laws via judicial review. That is a power they invented themselves.

torstenvlOP3y ago

Yes, it does. I think I was pretty clear about that. Help me understand where you're confused?

staticman23y ago

You are doing this weird thing I see on this web site at times when someones takes a court case they like and accepts whatever the judge states carte blanche. No further reading required.

The fact judicial review is not in the constitution is not controversial.

Here's what Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts web sight says:

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re...

torstenvlOP3y ago

It's a trendy take to say that judicial review isn't in the Constitution, and that may be superficially true, but it ignores two important facts that contradict that take:

(1) Article III's explicit grant of "appellate jurisdiction ... as to law"

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse