fifteenth?

wouldnt a better example be talking about plessy v ferguson?

I guess someone actually gets what I'm talking about

Or maybe roe v wade

im just giving you the benefit of the doubt

indeed

I know exactly what you're talking about

I just don't agree that the supreme court is manufacturing law out of thin air

Can I get a summary to catch up

@xorgy freedom of religon is in far more then just the 1st amendent as well. It's in the declaration of indepence as well

and you think that, but your example was an excellent example of straightforward constitutional law

Or any number of cases where the scotus decided it was unconstitutional even though the constitution never specifically says so

involving no particularly difficult arguments

same, i never got that summary earlier

Wait. It would be good for both sides to summarize their points

Besides even if judicial review was in the constitution

@Misomania yeah, I chose the 1st because it also has two other clauses relevant to the example

It's still too much fucking power for 9 unelected officials

Luckily it's not and can be curb stomped

here we go again with the "judicial review" boogeyman

actually the reason for it is because it would make the supreme court completely useless

you give me permission to boil pasta, and now you're upset I'm boiling macaroni

I don't find this mode of debate helpful

Be back in a few

come on you two i know you guys can be civil

"the word 'macaroni' doesn't appear _anywhere_ in my letter of permission for you to boil pasta"

The court was meant to be useless, it was meant to delegate between 2 parties as an unbiased 3rd party

> the court was meant to be useless

What part of the constitution says, "review by the US Supreme Court of the constitutional validity of a legislative act."

the part where the U.S. is a party

in any question concerning the constitutionality of a legislative act

I need exact words

Not implied phrases

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

read it a couple times

I have

It's not in there

now try to imagine you're not somebody arguing against the institution's purpose

because clearly that's not what the authors of article III meant

a judicial review isn't really all that powerful anyway iirc, to stop one branch they need the agreement (or at least passivity) of the 3rd branch. If both agreed against the judicial branch then they get their say instead

and you'll understand how cases where the U.S. is a party, including all questions about legislation, are subject to the judicial power