Why do originalists believe judicial review is constitutional?

[Statilius the Epicurean]

The power of the courts to strike down congressional legislation on e.g. labour bargaining agreements isn't in the constitution. It's not something the Framers originally intended either. It was a power given to itself by the courts in Marbury v. Madison as part of a partisan spat between Federalists and Jeffersonians. So what is the originalist argument for the constitutionality of judicial review in the US that doesn't veer into non-textualist arguments?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Warren and Marshall Crts were fighting slavery and Jim Crow laws in the South. The Crts were needed to extend the Bill of Rights to State Crts. Due to the fact that state crts refused to give blacks or Latinos a Public defendent to defend themselves from Lynching Laws. Judicial Review by Marshall and Warren Crts in Wainwright and Miranda granted the power of public defendent to the accused. Where blacks were hunted by white supremacist for 100 years, with Lynching

[NewYorkExpress]

I was under the impression they didn't believe judicial review was constitutional.

[136or142]

Any Amendment passed after the initial Amendments are all part of the Constitution.  The 14th Amendment clearly calls for Judicial Review with the "Due Process and Equal Protection' clauses.

Why is this even a debate?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I was under the impression they didn't believe judicial review was constitutional.

They believe slavery was wrong and Jim Crow was wrong: Marshall, Chase and Warren decided that; however, they dont believe in quotos and affirmative action since the Burger Crt

[Antonio the Sixth]

Marbury v. Madison was decided on pretty strictly textualist grounds.