Somebody finally said it! I've been saying this for years, that I can't find judicial review anywhere in the Constitution. Love your channel, keep it up.👍
It's sure not an only american phenomenon. Pretty much all you described aplies to Brazil's supreme court (with the aditional problem that Brazilian constitution is already much complex, ambiguous and prone to interpretation). A couple of years ago, our supreme court ruled that laws against racism should be applied to lgbt-phobia, even than there is no mention about that in the text of the law.
Judicial review wasn’t written in the constitution because it was, to the people at the time, considered a given to a tiered court system; Federalist Papers #78
Yeeeep. This is one of the dumbest popular "conservative" whines that persists in the populist imagination. None seem to have read that to the Constitution's authors, ALL branches of government have power to interpret the Constitution and on that basis to refuse to enact (executive), fund (legislature), or enforce/legitimate (judiciary) laws against them people is unconstitutional... or take steps against each other for sound so ("checks and balances" = adversarialism).
![Method Writing: The First Four Concepts - Jack Grapes [FULL INTERVIEW]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ba9jAVzADY0/mqdefault.jpg)
The more I hear about the Cathedral, the more they sound like an unstoppable force. Quite disheartening.
Far from unstoppable, but the 1st step is knowing what you are up against.
Somebody finally said it! I've been saying this for years, that I can't find judicial review anywhere in the Constitution. Love your channel, keep it up.👍
This is legislating from the Bench. The Senate should take back it's prerogative.
It was naive to imagine a document would bind and restrain power. That’s what our firearms were for. Too late now.
It's sure not an only american phenomenon. Pretty much all you described aplies to Brazil's supreme court (with the aditional problem that Brazilian constitution is already much complex, ambiguous and prone to interpretation).
A couple of years ago, our supreme court ruled that laws against racism should be applied to lgbt-phobia, even than there is no mention about that in the text of the law.
Would moving away from a common law system to a Roman law system solve this problem for common law systems like the USA and commonwealth countries ?
Judicial review wasn’t written in the constitution because it was, to the people at the time, considered a given to a tiered court system; Federalist Papers #78
Yeeeep. This is one of the dumbest popular "conservative" whines that persists in the populist imagination. None seem to have read that to the Constitution's authors, ALL branches of government have power to interpret the Constitution and on that basis to refuse to enact (executive), fund (legislature), or enforce/legitimate (judiciary) laws against them people is unconstitutional... or take steps against each other for sound so ("checks and balances" = adversarialism).
Straight bangers! I wish I found you a year ago!
Frankly ridiculous humans made my day.
thanks for the video