Don't like DC v. Heller (2008)? Tough Shit!

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Don't like DC v. Heller (2008)? Tough Shit!

While it is true that the Constitution does not use the words
"judicial review", neither did Marshall nor anyone else until
many years later. None the less the Constitution (in Article
III Section 2, don/t trust me, read it for yourself) does empower
the USSC to judge the Law. To paraphrase Marshall, it makes
no sense to empower the Court to judge the law, and then
to have the justices of that court swear to uphold the Constitution,
but thereafter to prohibit them from using the Constitution as
a standard by which to judge the law.

When you combine the Constitutional authority to judge the
law with the use of the Constitution itself as a supreme law
against which to judge other laws, you have the doctrine of
judicial review. Few other powers granted to any other
branch of the Federal Government are as clearly stated.

A reasonable person may argue that Heller was wrongly
decided. That would be a difference of opinion that could
be based on a reading of the Constitution. But the notion
that the USSC has no authority to strike down legislation
that violates the Constitution is an opinion that is based on
NOT reading the Constitution.

The separation of powers is under such an attack today such
as I have never before seen in my lifetime. It is also clear that
the footsoldiers on one side of this ideological war have been
ordered to confine their remarks to repetition of the soundbite
that "the courts have usurped the power of judicial review"
handed down to them from their superiors at the Heritage
Foundation. They are evidently forbidden to engage in any
discussion of their position, not even to defend it. The reason
for this prohibition is clear. Discussion inspires a person to
think for himself.

Those who purport to support the Constitution would do well to
read it.