Without judicial review, would the Constitution be enforcable?

[darklordoftech]

Or would the Constitution be a worthless piece of paper without judicial review enforcing it?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Conservative John Marshall used Judicial Review as a way to strike down laws that he knew were gonna be needed to be struck down, anyways, slave laws. Dixiecrats Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were against it, due to state rights. Fugitive slave law, which was passed by Jackson's appointed Justice, Taney, was struck down. Setting the stage up for: Civil War.

[MarkD]

No, it would not be worthless, it would still be enforced, because Congress, the President and his cabinet, still have interpretations of the Constitution of their own. Their respective interpretations of the Constitution are not always wrong, it's just that their interpretations are more often tainted and biased by political passions.

The judicial branch exercises judicial review and does so -- ostensibly -- without bias, neutrally, and with objectivity. That is what they are supposed to do. And that is supposed to mean that the whole country can feel more confidence in the accuracy of the judiciary's interpretation, and to trust the decisions. Unfortunately, too many Presidents choose who to appoint to the judicial branch based on a desire to see the Court tilt in the President's ideological direction. The party's base of supporters reinforce that desire. The result is a judiciary that is not any more objective and neutral and trustworthy than the other two branches. We might as well be holding national elections for the seats on the Supreme Court if the Presidents keep on doing that.

In 1932, President Herbert Hoover appointed New York Court of Appeals Judge Benjamin Cardozo to the Supreme Court, and that appointment was probably the best choice, made for the right reason, of any appointment made in the 20th or 21st Centuries.

[The Roach of Theroachea]

The legislative branch has the power to enforce the laws of the land. The judicial branch only has the power to interpret the laws. All three branches have found ways to make laws but that responsibility should rest with the legislative branch alone.

The Constitution is not a set of laws. It is a set of rights that belong to the people and limit what the government is allowed to do. The Constitution is not and can not be enforced on the people but only can protect the people from the government.

[McNukes™ #NYCMMWasAHero]

Even today, responsibility for enforcement of the Constitution is shared and every President since George W. Bush has issued executive orders interpreting it and enforcing it one way or another, while the veto was used as a means of enforcing the Constitution against Congress by George Washington himself and that was the exclusive justification for veto usage until at least Andrew Jackson. Congress also has its own enforcement mechanism, beside the Senate approval of Judges, Justices, and executive officials, in that its Congressmen can refuse to vote for legislation on the basis of unconstitutionality.

[brucejoel99]

An independent judiciary that fairly & promptly administers justice through its using judicial review of legislation is what makes the Constitution enforceable by a court &, thus, ultimately legal, supreme, & binding over the political branches.