nakkh Loc: San Mateo, Ca

The constitution is a living document. We can change it if there is the will.
The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress,
and the highest law of all — the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however,
is far from all-powerful. Its power is limited by the other two branches of government. Period.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

He already listed one. Were you in such a hurry to reply that you didn't read the post?

chrisscholbe Loc: Kansas City, MO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution

excerpted from the link........

Judicial review[edit]
Main articles: Judicial review and Judicial review in the United States
The power of the federal judiciary to review the constitutionality of a statute or treaty, or to review an administrative regulation for consistency with either a statute, a treaty, or the Constitution itself, is an implied power derived in part from Clause 2 of Section 2.[11]

Though the Constitution does not expressly provide that the federal judiciary has the power of judicial review, many of the Constitution's Framers viewed such a power as an appropriate power for the federal judiciary to possess. In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote,

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.[12]

Others, however, disagreed, claiming that each branch could determine for itself the constitutionality of its actions.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

I suggest Conservatives and others who wonder at this question read a few Supreme Court Decisions. Some subjects addressed simply didn't exist in 1789. Furthermore, Justices are very scholarly and thoughtful people who decide issues that change; remember women couldn't vote originally, nor blacks. We generally think that is not acceptable now. The court has decided that gays should have certain rights, that the accused deserve certain protections, that issues like Abortion need responsible application, and that George W. Bush should be President.

They don't always get it right, and sometimes they correct earlier courts or themselves sometime later, but we are all in search of a more perfect union, and we haven't reached it yet--not nearly--but we strive, we wish and labor and reach, and we have survived 225 years now, and survived the Civil War, and with just a little bit of luck and no more George Bush, we may hope to survive a little longer.

Amen.

nakkh Loc: San Mateo, Ca

Nicely said.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

"Implied power" is NOT a specficly stated power. There are as many implied powers as any one can think up. I imply that the 1st ammendment gives me the right to preach Roman Catholic doctrine in public schools. The 1st amendment say that my right to practice religion "Shall not be infringed". In fact that actually happened as I read the bible at assembly at grade school in the 50's. and I am not even christian. Do you really believe that implied power is a valid reason? That kind of thinking can be quite dangerous. As a result of the court's approval of the ACA because congress has the right to tax, congress could imply that it has the right to tax citizens for not buying any thing. Not buying American Made Ford small cars. And every time they do not, they pay a tax of $5,000. According to the doctrine of implied power congress has the right to do this.

chrisscholbe Loc: Kansas City, MO

These "implied powers" are based on Clause 2 of Section 2.

I'm NOT disputing whether these powers are or are not specifically documented.

They have been in effect long enough that they are generally accepted.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Well thank you Professor Bob. Where'd you get your law degree, Liberty University?

So, since you asked:

Article 3 of the Constitution

Section 1: 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 Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. - This establishes the Supreme Court and sets up Compensation for Justices.

Section 2: 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;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. - This establishes the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

In 1803, Marbury vs Madison established the Supreme Courts power of Judicial Review, which makes SCOTUS the final arbiter of Constitutional issues:

In writing the decision, John Marshall argued that acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution are not law and therefore are non-binding to the courts, and that the judiciary’s first responsibility is always to uphold the Constitution. If two laws conflict, Marshall wrote, the court bears responsibility for deciding which law applies in any given case.

So there.

Robert Graybeal Loc: Myrtle Beach

You may have plenty of issues, that's your problem (at least it will be seconds after you die)
I ask again, show me a conflict?

nakkh Loc: San Mateo, Ca

Conflict with reality.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Yes they most certainly have. But that general acceptance does not make them correct. The framers made a provision for overturning laws. They did not intend for a law to be stricken by a few Judges. The very difficult appeal process was written to make the appeal process difficult. It is my belief that the Supreme Court has far to much power to be left in the hands of so few people. Some Judges in the past have been incompetent drunks who passed out when in session. Plus the Court has made terrible descions, such as allowing American citixens to be rounded up, ripped from their homes, leaving all their possesions and were housedin "resettlement Camps" after Pearl harbor. A good book on the history of the court is "Men In Black"

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

That's what I said. The court decided in Marbury V Madison. that it had judicial review. THE COURT DECIDED not the Constitution. A new court could rule that judicial review would no longer be under the perview of the court. I still don.t believe that so much power should reside in 9 unelected,people Correction 5 un elected people

mwalsh Loc: Houston

Who should be awarded the power of reviewing the constitutionality of laws passed by the congress. Let congress police it's own laws?

"Hey, we passed this law, but upon rational reflection we should not have passed it as it is unconstitutional. Lets take a vote to strike it back down!"

Yeah, that should work real well...

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

1803, right? Two hundred and thirteen years ago, and suddenly someone--with no academic or legal or constitutional background--just a membership in the Ugly Hedgehog, wants to reorganize our goverment to his uninformed conception.

What's not to like, right?

Sweet Jesus, help us.

ken hubert Loc: Missouri

And no more Clinton's or Twat!