Is Judicial Review Constitutional?

[WillK]

What did Jefferson contribute, intellectually, to the Constitution?

Adams did not contribute much to the intellectual underpinnings of the U.S. Constitution. Jefferson and Madison did. They were far more qualified than Adams to comment on the constitutionality of judicial review.

Well, that is certainly an inaccurate historical statement.

Well no, it most certainly is not.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Well no, it most certainly is not.

You may think you're right, and I'm sure in your fantasy world you are, but in the world of facts, you are incorrect.  Sorry.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

What did Jefferson contribute, intellectually, to the Constitution?

Adams did not contribute much to the intellectual underpinnings of the U.S. Constitution. Jefferson and Madison did. They were far more qualified than Adams to comment on the constitutionality of judicial review.

Well, that is certainly an inaccurate historical statement.

Well no, it most certainly is not.

The Constitution is based on the Jeffersonian principle that the government be limited strictly to specifically-enumerated powers. In addition, it is thanks largely to the Jeffersonians that we have our Bill of Rights.

Adams's conservative, aristocratic, authoritarian view of government is not reflected in the Constitution.

[WillK]

What did Jefferson contribute, intellectually, to the Constitution?

Adams did not contribute much to the intellectual underpinnings of the U.S. Constitution. Jefferson and Madison did. They were far more qualified than Adams to comment on the constitutionality of judicial review.

Well, that is certainly an inaccurate historical statement.

Well no, it most certainly is not.

The Constitution is based on the Jeffersonian principle that the government be limited strictly to specifically-enumerated powers. In addition, it is thanks largely to the Jeffersonians that we have our Bill of Rights.

Epic fail of a response.  The concept of "Jeffersonian" did not exist at the time the Constitution was drafted.  You claimed that Jefferson himself, not some alleged "Jeffersonians", had contributed much to the intellectual underpinnings of the U.S. Constitution. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Adam's intellectual views on government expressed in his work on the Massachusetts Constitution and his book on American state constitutions, which was published in the US at the time of the Constitution, had a big impact on the drafting of the US constitution.  His view of the need to balance powers against each other is a main feature of the Constitution.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The Constitution is based on the Jeffersonian principle that the government be limited strictly to specifically-enumerated powers. In addition, it is thanks largely to the Jeffersonians that we have our Bill of Rights.

Adams's conservative, aristocratic, authoritarian view of government is not reflected in the Constitution.

Wow; that is almost completely wrong.  Only the bolded part has even the slightest historical merit.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

What did Jefferson contribute, intellectually, to the Constitution?

Adams did not contribute much to the intellectual underpinnings of the U.S. Constitution. Jefferson and Madison did. They were far more qualified than Adams to comment on the constitutionality of judicial review.

Well, that is certainly an inaccurate historical statement.

Well no, it most certainly is not.

The Constitution is based on the Jeffersonian principle that the government be limited strictly to specifically-enumerated powers. In addition, it is thanks largely to the Jeffersonians that we have our Bill of Rights.

Epic fail of a response.  The concept of "Jeffersonian" did not exist at the time the Constitution was drafted.  You claimed that Jefferson himself, not some alleged "Jeffersonians", had contributed much to the intellectual underpinnings of the U.S. Constitution. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Adam's intellectual views on government expressed in his work on the Massachusetts Constitution and his book on American state constitutions, which was published in the US at the time of the Constitution, had a big impact on the drafting of the US constitution.  His view of the need to balance powers against each other is a main feature of the Constitution.

Epic fail of a response? Right back atcha.

Adams' intellectual influence on our Constitutional system was minimal at best.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[WillK]

Adams' intellectual influence on our Constitutional system was minimal at best.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In doing a cut-and-paste from Wikipedia, you left off the next part:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Adams' intellectual influence on our Constitutional system was minimal at best.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In doing a cut-and-paste from Wikipedia, you left off the next part:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

.

Sorry, that doesn't disprove anything I said. Adams's contributions to the American government were minimal, and that's why authors in more recent times have had to go out of their way to find examples to point out. That doesn't put him anywhere near the level of Jefferson, whose ideals fundamentally shaped American political thought.

[WillK]

Adams' intellectual influence on our Constitutional system was minimal at best.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In doing a cut-and-paste from Wikipedia, you left off the next part:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

.

Sorry, that doesn't disprove anything I said. Adams's contributions to the American government were minimal, and that's why authors in more recent times have had to go out of their way to find examples to point out. That doesn't put him anywhere near the level of Jefferson, whose ideals fundamentally shaped American political thought.

The bold/underline sentance in what I quoted contradicts everything you said.
Regardless, Adams was head and shoulders above Jefferson in intellectual contributions to this country. Basic knowledge of their writings and influence shows this. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Constitution is based on the Jeffersonian principle that the government be limited strictly to specifically-enumerated powers.

If that is a Jeffersonian principle, he must have developed it after 1776.  Jefferson was quite proud of his contributions to the Virginia Constitution of 1776, but there isn't even a hint of the concept of enumerated powers in that document.  It did have separation of powers into three branches, and a bill of rights that gives specifically enumerated limitations on governmental power.

Incidentally, that constitution had an even stricter separation of church and state than the U.S. Constitution, in that "all ministers of the gospel, of every denomination, be incapable of being elected members of either House of Assembly or the Privy Council".

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Adams' intellectual influence on our Constitutional system was minimal at best.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In doing a cut-and-paste from Wikipedia, you left off the next part:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

.

Sorry, that doesn't disprove anything I said. Adams's contributions to the American government were minimal, and that's why authors in more recent times have had to go out of their way to find examples to point out. That doesn't put him anywhere near the level of Jefferson, whose ideals fundamentally shaped American political thought.

The bold/underline sentance in what I quoted contradicts everything you said.
Regardless, Adams was head and shoulders above Jefferson in intellectual contributions to this country. Basic knowledge of their writings and influence shows this. 

Sorry, I've read both of their writings, and in fact I've read many of their letters to each other. Adams was a decent man of good intentions, but his worldview was conservative and narrow-minded, contrary to the spirit of the American Revolution.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The Constitution is based on the Jeffersonian principle that the government be limited strictly to specifically-enumerated powers.

If that is a Jeffersonian principle, he must have developed it after 1776.  Jefferson was quite proud of his contributions to the Virginia Constitution of 1776, but there isn't even a hint of the concept of enumerated powers in that document.  It did have separation of powers into three branches, and a bill of rights that gives specifically enumerated limitations on governmental power.

Incidentally, that constitution had an even stricter separation of church and state than the U.S. Constitution, in that "all ministers of the gospel, of every denomination, be incapable of being elected members of either House of Assembly or the Privy Council".

And Adams considered the principles of Christianity to be the principles upon which the Founding Fathers achieved independence...

[WillK]

Adams' intellectual influence on our Constitutional system was minimal at best.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In doing a cut-and-paste from Wikipedia, you left off the next part:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

.

Sorry, that doesn't disprove anything I said. Adams's contributions to the American government were minimal, and that's why authors in more recent times have had to go out of their way to find examples to point out. That doesn't put him anywhere near the level of Jefferson, whose ideals fundamentally shaped American political thought.

The bold/underline sentance in what I quoted contradicts everything you said.
Regardless, Adams was head and shoulders above Jefferson in intellectual contributions to this country. Basic knowledge of their writings and influence shows this. 

Sorry, I've read both of their writings ....

I find that hard to believe

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Adams' intellectual influence on our Constitutional system was minimal at best.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In doing a cut-and-paste from Wikipedia, you left off the next part:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

.

Sorry, that doesn't disprove anything I said. Adams's contributions to the American government were minimal, and that's why authors in more recent times have had to go out of their way to find examples to point out. That doesn't put him anywhere near the level of Jefferson, whose ideals fundamentally shaped American political thought.

The bold/underline sentance in what I quoted contradicts everything you said.
Regardless, Adams was head and shoulders above Jefferson in intellectual contributions to this country. Basic knowledge of their writings and influence shows this. 

Sorry, I've read both of their writings ....

I find that hard to believe

Okay.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Constitution is based on the Jeffersonian principle that the government be limited strictly to specifically-enumerated powers.

If that is a Jeffersonian principle, he must have developed it after 1776.  Jefferson was quite proud of his contributions to the Virginia Constitution of 1776, but there isn't even a hint of the concept of enumerated powers in that document.  It did have separation of powers into three branches, and a bill of rights that gives specifically enumerated limitations on governmental power.

Incidentally, that constitution had an even stricter separation of church and state than the U.S. Constitution, in that "all ministers of the gospel, of every denomination, be incapable of being elected members of either House of Assembly or the Privy Council".

And Adams considered the principles of Christianity to be the principles upon which the Founding Fathers achieved independence...

In the context of the full clause that is found in, its clear that the Virginia limitation on ministers was likely a reaction to the governmental payment of ministerial salaries in colonial times, as not just ministers but also everyone drawing a governmental salary was similarly enjoined from being elected.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That clause is not the only mention of religion in that Constitution however:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would seem to support Adams views on the importance to the Founding Fathers of Christian principles, which sadly often have nothing to do with Christian ministers, especially those that try to involve themselves in government.

[beneficii]

The Constitution is based on the Jeffersonian principle that the government be limited strictly to specifically-enumerated powers.

If that is a Jeffersonian principle, he must have developed it after 1776.  Jefferson was quite proud of his contributions to the Virginia Constitution of 1776, but there isn't even a hint of the concept of enumerated powers in that document.  It did have separation of powers into three branches, and a bill of rights that gives specifically enumerated limitations on governmental power.

Incidentally, that constitution had an even stricter separation of church and state than the U.S. Constitution, in that "all ministers of the gospel, of every denomination, be incapable of being elected members of either House of Assembly or the Privy Council".

(This is a response to the text I bolded.)

I think it was because Virginia was a unitary state that its constitution didn't have enumerated powers.  Enumerated powers tend to be creatures of federal states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.jef.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid=46

[Mechaman]

What did Jefferson contribute, intellectually, to the Constitution?

Adams did not contribute much to the intellectual underpinnings of the U.S. Constitution. Jefferson and Madison did. They were far more qualified than Adams to comment on the constitutionality of judicial review.

Well, that is certainly an inaccurate historical statement.

Well no, it most certainly is not.

The Constitution is based on the Jeffersonian principle that the government be limited strictly to specifically-enumerated powers. In addition, it is thanks largely to the Jeffersonians that we have our Bill of Rights.

Adams's conservative, aristocratic, authoritarian view of government is not reflected in the Constitution.

Well sorry to be prying here Tas, but I find it odd that you would vote for Adams over Jefferson in 1796 given your opinion of his views of government..............
I mean really.

[12th Doctor]

No, its extra-constitutional nonsense that has been used to enable tyranny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

Very tyranny-enabling indeed.

Indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_%26_M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster,_Inc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_v._Caballes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Education_v._Earls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atwater_v._City_of_Lago_Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_v._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Ross
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

Don't forget this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Of course, there are tons more that could be cited, but I'm sure BRTD thinks a case like that abusing the Constitution's language to expand government power over the economy was a good thing.

You're confusing concept with reality.  So, judicial review has been used to do some bad things, but that is not the fault of judicial review, that is the fault of the current Court.

Anyway, even though the role of the Supreme Court was not fully defined until Marbury, that general idea had been the intention of the Constitution.  It wasn't just made up.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Anyway, even though the role of the Supreme Court was not fully defined until Marbury, that general idea had been the intention of the Constitution.  It wasn't just made up.

Later than that, I'd argue.  After Marbury, judicial review wasn't used again until Dred Scott, so I'd say that the role of the Court in terms of reviewing federal laws had not taken hold.  Not even until the New Deal was the SCOTUS regularly involved in striking laws.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

No, its extra-constitutional nonsense that has been used to enable tyranny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

Very tyranny-enabling indeed.

Indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_%26_M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster,_Inc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_v._Caballes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Education_v._Earls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atwater_v._City_of_Lago_Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_v._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Ross
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

Don't forget this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Of course, there are tons more that could be cited, but I'm sure BRTD thinks a case like that abusing the Constitution's language to expand government power over the economy was a good thing.

You're confusing concept with reality.  So, judicial review has been used to do some bad things, but that is not the fault of judicial review, that is the fault of the current Court.

Anyway, even though the role of the Supreme Court was not fully defined until Marbury, that general idea had been the intention of the Constitution.  It wasn't just made up.

The concept of judicial review, whereby a group of nine unelected divine black robes who are unaccountable to the people are endowed with dictatorial powers over the fate of the nation, is fundamentally flawed and incompatible with a free society.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Enumerated powers tend to be creatures of federal states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.jef.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid=46

Enumerated powers are more common in federal constitutions, because the component states did not wish to trust the federal government with a broad grant of power.  Also if too broad a grant is given, then it may not be a federal government any longer.  However, enumerated powers are found in the constitutions of a number of the States of the United States, most notably Alabama, where the constitution was written because the people did not wish to trust the state government with a broad grant of power.

Enumerated powers are thus a mark of distrust in the power of republican institutions to safeguard the freedoms of those who are represented in them.

The Alabama Constitution of 1901, because of its distrust of what both State and local governments might do, has managed to require close to 800 Amendments in less than 11 decades.

My favorite amendment of the Alabama Constitution is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Verily]

Enumerated powers tend to be creatures of federal states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.jef.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid=46

Enumerated powers are more common in federal constitutions, because the component states did not wish to trust the federal government with a broad grant of power.  Also if too broad a grant is given, then it may not be a federal government any longer.  However, enumerated powers are found in the constitutions of a number of the States of the United States, most notably Alabama, where the constitution was written because the people did not wish to trust the state government with a broad grant of power.

Enumerated powers are thus a mark of distrust in the power of republican institutions to safeguard the freedoms of those who are represented in them.

The Alabama Constitution of 1901, because of its distrust of what both State and local governments might do, has managed to require close to 800 Amendments in less than 11 decades.

My favorite amendment of the Alabama Constitution is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is also true that successful federal states need not have enumerated powers. Germany is perhaps the best example, as it is highly federal and yet allows the federal government to legislate on more or less everything.

[Free Palestine]

Enumerated powers tend to be creatures of federal states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.jef.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid=46

Enumerated powers are more common in federal constitutions, because the component states did not wish to trust the federal government with a broad grant of power.  Also if too broad a grant is given, then it may not be a federal government any longer.  However, enumerated powers are found in the constitutions of a number of the States of the United States, most notably Alabama, where the constitution was written because the people did not wish to trust the state government with a broad grant of power.

Enumerated powers are thus a mark of distrust in the power of republican institutions to safeguard the freedoms of those who are represented in them.

The Alabama Constitution of 1901, because of its distrust of what both State and local governments might do, has managed to require close to 800 Amendments in less than 11 decades.

My favorite amendment of the Alabama Constitution is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is also true that successful federal states need not have enumerated powers. Germany is perhaps the best example, as it is highly federal and yet allows the federal government to legislate on more or less everything.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious why Germany isn't the best example.

[Franzl]

Yeah, it's pretty obvious why Germany isn't the best example.

Then explain it to a dumb like me.

[Verily]

No, its extra-constitutional nonsense that has been used to enable tyranny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

Very tyranny-enabling indeed.

Indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_%26_M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster,_Inc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_v._Caballes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Education_v._Earls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atwater_v._City_of_Lago_Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_v._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Ross
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

Only in one of the cases you listed did the court even apply the powers granted to it by judicial review (Roe v. Wade). Learn what it means and try again.

Edit: Two, sorry, was unaware of the Missouri Compromise part of Dred Scott.