----------
Sorry to make you wait. My son was injured at his work, today. He messed-up his left rotator cup and twisted his ankle. From the X-ray, he may have dislocated his left clavicle,too. I just got back from his house. Hence my tardiness in responding the you. My apologies.

To answer your question, in the United States, "'judicial review' is the ability of a court to examine and decide if a statute, treaty or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define a power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.

"Two landmark decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court served to confirm the inferred constitutional authority for judicial review in the United States: In 1796, Hylton v. United States was the first case decided by the Supreme Court involving a direct challenge to the constitutionality of an act of Congress, the Carriage Act of 1794 which imposed a "carriage tax". The Court engaged in the process of judicial review by examining the plaintiff's claim that the carriage tax was unconstitutional. After review, the Supreme Court decided the Carriage Act was not unconstitutional. In 1803, Marbury v. Madison was the first Supreme Court case where the Court asserted its authority for judicial review to strike down a law as unconstitutional. At the end of his opinion in this decision, Chief Justice John Marshall maintained that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of their sworn oath of office to uphold the Constitution as instructed in Article Six of the Constitution. As of 2014, the SCOTUS has upheld 176 acts of the US Congress as unConstitutional.

"Before the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the power of judicial review had been exercised in a number of states. In the years from 1776 to 1787, state courts in at least seven of the thirteen states had engaged in judicial review and had invalidated state statutes because they violated the state constitution or other higher law. These state courts treated state constitutions as statements of governing law to be interpreted and applied by judges. These courts reasoned that because their state constitution was the fundamental law of the state, they must apply the state constitution rather than an act of the legislature that was inconsistent with the state constitution.

"These state court cases involving judicial review were reported in the press and produced public discussion and comment. At least seven of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, including Alexander Hamilton and Edmund Randolph, had personal experience with judicial review because they had been lawyers or judges in these state court cases involving judicial review. Other delegates referred to some of these state court cases during the debates at the Constitutional Convention. The concept of judicial review therefore was familiar to the framers and to the public before the Constitutional Convention.

"The Constitution does not expressly provide that the federal judiciary has the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an IMPLIED POWER, derived from Article III and Article VI.

"The provisions relating to the federal judicial power in Article III state:
'The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority. . . . In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.'

"The Supremacy Clause of Article VI states:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. . . . [A]ll executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”

"The power of judicial review has been implied from these provisions based on the following reasoning. It is the inherent duty of the courts to determine the applicable law in any given case. The Supremacy Clause says '[t]his Constitution' is the 'supreme law of the land.' The Constitution therefore is the fundamental law of the United States. Federal statutes are the law of the land only when they are "made in pursuance" of the Constitution. State constitutions and statutes are valid only if they are consistent with the Constitution. Any law contrary to the Constitution is void. The federal judicial power extends to all cases "arising under this Constitution." As part of their inherent duty to determine the law, the federal courts have the duty to interpret and apply the Constitution and to decide whether a federal or state statute conflicts with the Constitution. All judges are bound to follow the Constitution. If there is a conflict, the federal courts have a duty to follow the Constitution and to treat the conflicting statute as unenforceable. The Supreme Court has final appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution, so the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to decide whether statutes are consistent with the Constitution."

You might, also, be interested in reading what Alexander Hamiltom thought of the SCOTUS and it's ability toward "judicial review."
"But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving that obstacles to the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts. This is a circumstance calculated to have more influence upon the character of our governments, than but few may be aware of."
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78"

And, if I may add, the "interpretation" of any written word is essential in applying the author's meaning(s) of the word(s) to a mental understanding by reader. Without "interpretation" the words are as meaningless as any other grouping of characters, written on whatever.

How do you interpret the Bible? In it, it's written to, "Love your neighbor." Does that mean that you go over to your neighbor's house and kiss and make out and have sex with your neighbor? Or, do you simply treat them as you'd like them to treat you? It's all in how one interprets the word, "love."

How do you interpret the directions on a bottle of a mixture that reads, "Shake well before using?" Do you shake the bottle or do you put the bottle down and shake your own body? Either way, you've done what was written on the bottle. But, how did you "interpret" the meaning of the directions, the words?

It's very obvious you're scrapping the bottom of your barrel to try to trap me. Give it up, Archie. It ain't happening. Your arguments have no basis in the reasoning you claim to use. If you did use reasoning, you would've already seen the falacy of your question.

The Constitution is a written document. It's made up of words. The words are grouped into sentences and paragraphs. The structure and alignment of the sentences are so one can interpret their collective meanings. Your argument isn't against the SCOTUS and its ability to "interpret" the Constitution. Your argument is based in the fact that the SCOTUS isn't interpreting the Constitution as you want it to. Again, if you can't win by playing within the rules, you want to change the rules.

FYI - Political Science, with an emphasis in Constitutional law, was one of my minors in college. Admittedly, much of what I posted, here, I copied from the Wikipedia. I used quotes around the paragraphs that I copied. I used Wikepedia because I wanted to demonstrate to you how easy it is to find out the answer to your question regarding the SCOTUS and its ability to "interpret" the Constitution. Besides, I'm not going to go through all my old notes from college when Wikipedia is just a click away and it says, essentially the same thing that are in my notes. You should try it sometime; research, that is.

---------------

I appreciate your being honest. I'm that way, too.

I'm glad your experience at an African-American church was good. The fine folks in Charleston were very welcoming to the young white man who visited with them, too; just before he killed several of them in cold blood. His involvement in the 'white supremacy' movement gave him his feelings of racial superiority. And, he spouted much of the same thoughts as does Vernon.

Just as you get tired of hearing about the problems within the black community, they're just as tired of having to live with them on a daily basis. Fortunately for you though, you can always change the channel or change the topic of conversation. Changing their way of life isn't as easy; especially given the ambivalence of so many who haven't had the misfortune of experiencing life as they live it.

Lastly, who's blaming a 14 year old white kid for anything? What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

----------

Would you mind telling me what 14 year old you're talking about? You've mentioned one twice, now, and I can't find the case you're speaking of. If you're talking in generalities, then each case, where a minor kills someone, stands on its own merits. For you to lump people together only shows that you are prejudiced in your thinking.

Also, while my ideologies may be to your left, I'm far from being a communist. Your calling me and others a communist is nothing more than an over-used insult. It's the same type of childish behavior on expects from a grammar school playground. And, if I wanted to "force" you to believe as I wanted you to, a lot more than words would need to be used. And no, I'm not threatening you. Unfortunately, you're too set in your thinking to be willing to look at a situation from another point of view.

---------

I seriously doubt you have the nerve to say negative things to or about minorities in their presence. This forum is where you blow-off steam because, here, you can say pretty-much what you want, without anyone knowing who you really are and where, in Louisiana, you live. Without this anonymity, you'd be too afraid to say anything to someone's face.

But, if anyone needs pity, it's you. You're the one who is so afraid of change and of you losing your "status in society" to those you feel superior to. If you really felt good about yourself, you'd not have the need to demean others; especially those less fortunate than you are.

Your own need for pity has overwhelmed any desire you may have ever had to help others. Poor, poor, pitiful you. You're so picked-on. You're so full of self-pity. You want to believe that the government wants to take away everything you have. Too bad, you can't see that you haven't lost anything to the government; that you still can own guns; that you can still attend any church you want; that you can still say just about anything you want; no matter how much it might hurt another and be patiently false. Go cry me a river over all the freedoms you THINK you've lost, and SAY you've lost, but haven't. Yep, you're the one wanting pity.

------------

From my interactions with glaucon, while he's a very opinionated person (aren't we all?), he fires back, in kind, when fired upon.

As to the hiring situation, I made no reference to whether the new position was a promotion or not. I simply said that it was a job. You assumed it otherwise. In other words, you jumped to a conclusion. Based on preconceived notions and not on the facts provided.

And, yes, I'm not working. I'm retired after 30+ years as a federal employee.

Vernon, in my opinion, this person is another far left, closed minded, cherry picking wanna be bully. He won't listen, doesn't care what you think unless you walk in lock step with the marxist/Alinsky plan. He tries to use guilt and shame to discredit anyone who disagrees with him. That is how the leftists roll. They don't care about rational thought, have no respect, or patience for anyone who thinks for themselves, instead of along the lines of political parties. I think that anyone who follows party lines without thinking rationally about it is a fool. That is what you are dealing with here. A fool.

-----------------

So, when a conservative gets a taste of their own medicine, they run, crying to another conservative. In between sobs, the hurt conservative says, "The mean liberal is mistreating me by using the same language and tactics that I used against him. Everything I say, he uses against me! He uses shame and guilt against me. It hurts my feelings! It's not fair!" You two are hilarious!!!

Every one of the the leftist characteristics you attribute to me, I've had used against myself by conservatives who won't or can't present any rational thought behind their expounding of their party mantra; including what you posted above. It's the same made-up crap I've heard from you guys since time immemorial as well as ad nausium. It's no more applicative to me now as it was a then. Really, can't you come up with something new and different to insult me and my fellow liberals with?

I've always been willing and ready to an open and honest dialogue about the political differences between conservatives and liberals. Unfortunately, only a very few conserves can maintain their composure when I show them where and why their wrong in their beliefs. Their immediate reaction is a fake claim to take offense and accuse me of being closed-minded. Really!? I'm not seeing any indications that they, or you two, are trying to see anything from my point of view. But, you immediately expect me to acknowledge your position as more valid than mine. And, when I don't, you start attacking with your typical insults and belittling remarks. As such, why shouldn't I reciprocate with similar comments? After all, that's the only kind of conversation that conserves seem to want to have with anyone who dares contradict them.



For someone who says, "I think that anyone who follows party lines without thinking rationally about it is a fool," it should be pointed out to you that you're doing an extremely fine job of doing the very same thing. What's the old saying, "It takes one to know one?" It's very obvious that you're just as much a fool as you say I am. Thanks for the good laugh, Arch!!

Did not do real well in Highschool my day started at 4:00am moved 4 lines of a farmers sprinkler system. Come home feed the chickens, pigs, horses and cows, milked two cows. And was taught that there is absolutely nothing in this world that is free, some where along the line some one had to pay for it!

Then bathed and got ready for school, after school I started all over again. Right out of Highschool in 1967, joined the U. S. Air Force and out in 1974.

Got a job with a fertilizer manufacturing company for 40 years, was a car caring union member, but not 100% union. What a lot of people do not realize, is and business, doses not pay your wages, consumers pay your wages.

They more you want in your pocket, the more it cost the consumers to buy the product you are producing.

----------
Sorry to make you wait. My son was injured at his work, today. He messed-up his left rotator cup and twisted his ankle. From the X-ray, he may have dislocated his left clavicle,too. I just got back from his house. Hence my tardiness in responding the you. My apologies.

To answer your question, in the United States, "'judicial review' is the ability of a court to examine and decide if a statute, treaty or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define a power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.

"Two landmark decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court served to confirm the inferred constitutional authority for judicial review in the United States: In 1796, Hylton v. United States was the first case decided by the Supreme Court involving a direct challenge to the constitutionality of an act of Congress, the Carriage Act of 1794 which imposed a "carriage tax". The Court engaged in the process of judicial review by examining the plaintiff's claim that the carriage tax was unconstitutional. After review, the Supreme Court decided the Carriage Act was not unconstitutional. In 1803, Marbury v. Madison was the first Supreme Court case where the Court asserted its authority for judicial review to strike down a law as unconstitutional. At the end of his opinion in this decision, Chief Justice John Marshall maintained that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of their sworn oath of office to uphold the Constitution as instructed in Article Six of the Constitution. As of 2014, the SCOTUS has upheld 176 acts of the US Congress as unConstitutional.

"Before the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the power of judicial review had been exercised in a number of states. In the years from 1776 to 1787, state courts in at least seven of the thirteen states had engaged in judicial review and had invalidated state statutes because they violated the state constitution or other higher law. These state courts treated state constitutions as statements of governing law to be interpreted and applied by judges. These courts reasoned that because their state constitution was the fundamental law of the state, they must apply the state constitution rather than an act of the legislature that was inconsistent with the state constitution.

"These state court cases involving judicial review were reported in the press and produced public discussion and comment. At least seven of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, including Alexander Hamilton and Edmund Randolph, had personal experience with judicial review because they had been lawyers or judges in these state court cases involving judicial review. Other delegates referred to some of these state court cases during the debates at the Constitutional Convention. The concept of judicial review therefore was familiar to the framers and to the public before the Constitutional Convention.

"The Constitution does not expressly provide that the federal judiciary has the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an IMPLIED POWER, derived from Article III and Article VI.

"The provisions relating to the federal judicial power in Article III state:
'The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority. . . . In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.'

"The Supremacy Clause of Article VI states:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. . . . [A]ll executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”

"The power of judicial review has been implied from these provisions based on the following reasoning. It is the inherent duty of the courts to determine the applicable law in any given case. The Supremacy Clause says '[t]his Constitution' is the 'supreme law of the land.' The Constitution therefore is the fundamental law of the United States. Federal statutes are the law of the land only when they are "made in pursuance" of the Constitution. State constitutions and statutes are valid only if they are consistent with the Constitution. Any law contrary to the Constitution is void. The federal judicial power extends to all cases "arising under this Constitution." As part of their inherent duty to determine the law, the federal courts have the duty to interpret and apply the Constitution and to decide whether a federal or state statute conflicts with the Constitution. All judges are bound to follow the Constitution. If there is a conflict, the federal courts have a duty to follow the Constitution and to treat the conflicting statute as unenforceable. The Supreme Court has final appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution, so the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to decide whether statutes are consistent with the Constitution."

You might, also, be interested in reading what Alexander Hamiltom thought of the SCOTUS and it's ability toward "judicial review."
"But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving that obstacles to the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts. This is a circumstance calculated to have more influence upon the character of our governments, than but few may be aware of."
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78"

And, if I may add, the "interpretation" of any written word is essential in applying the author's meaning(s) of the word(s) to a mental understanding by reader. Without "interpretation" the words are as meaningless as any other grouping of characters, written on whatever.

How do you interpret the Bible? In it, it's written to, "Love your neighbor." Does that mean that you go over to your neighbor's house and kiss and make out and have sex with your neighbor? Or, do you simply treat them as you'd like them to treat you? It's all in how one interprets the word, "love."

How do you interpret the directions on a bottle of a mixture that reads, "Shake well before using?" Do you shake the bottle or do you put the bottle down and shake your own body? Either way, you've done what was written on the bottle. But, how did you "interpret" the meaning of the directions, the words?

It's very obvious you're scrapping the bottom of your barrel to try to trap me. Give it up, Archie. It ain't happening. Your arguments have no basis in the reasoning you claim to use. If you did use reasoning, you would've already seen the falacy of your question.

The Constitution is a written document. It's made up of words. The words are grouped into sentences and paragraphs. The structure and alignment of the sentences are so one can interpret their collective meanings. Your argument isn't against the SCOTUS and its ability to "interpret" the Constitution. Your argument is based in the fact that the SCOTUS isn't interpreting the Constitution as you want it to. Again, if you can't win by playing within the rules, you want to change the rules.

FYI - Political Science, with an emphasis in Constitutional law, was one of my minors in college. Admittedly, much of what I posted, here, I copied from the Wikipedia. I used quotes around the paragraphs that I copied. I used Wikepedia because I wanted to demonstrate to you how easy it is to find out the answer to your question regarding the SCOTUS and its ability to "interpret" the Constitution. Besides, I'm not going to go through all my old notes from college when Wikipedia is just a click away and it says, essentially the same thing that are in my notes. You should try it sometime; research, that is.

In dealing with the folks on OPP main for more than a year I've learned a few things. I have a certain amount of respect for conservative thinking as I am fairly conservative in my own circumstances: I abhor debt, think folks should earn their own way, think that rights come with responsibilities, etc.

Some of the things I've learned:

-some conservatives are extremely racist and proud of it. Most others seem to tolerate that as 'free speech'.
- some are intolerant of different points of view.
-some are prone to verbal violence when challenged.
-some know only the history of their country that confirms their already held beliefs.
-they are afraid of the future and change.
-their hatred of the President colors every idea, whether the President has anything to do with the issue or not.

The list is longer, but that is enough for now. It seems that conservatives have no tolerance for the complexity and ambiguity that comes with living. They call it having a moral compass, whereas progressives are moral relativists. THat must make life very hard for them because we live in a revolutionary society and age. The US has always been an agent of change and revolution, and overturned the cherished notions of the old guard. Perhaps that is why conservatives seem so bitter:

they are constantly railing and fighting against forces that the cannot change and cannot defeat.

If they weren't so mean and angry, I'd almost feel sorry for them.