Posted by Randy Barnett:
Tip to Students (and other readers):  

   A student wrote concerning my post on Sai Prakash and John Yoo's
   article on judicial review:

     I was a little surprised to see your recent post asserting that
     judicial review was not "made up" in Marbury v. Madison.
     As I understood it after taking ConLaw, the idea of judicial review
     had been around before that case. For example, Federalist #78 was
     written to say that it wasn't that bad (so someone must have
     criticized it). I think most critics are saying that it was
     inserted into the Constitution by Marbury v. Madison, or that its
     inclusion in the Consitution was made up. The reason that there was
     little dissent on both sides of the aisle at the time was that the
     Federalists and Anti-Federalists both saw it as a great power that
     they could exploit. However, that doesn't mean that the
     Constitution provides for that power.

   A similar comment showed up on a website [1]here.

     I'm no scholar... just a 1L, but if you read closely, judicial
     review does not necessarily equal judicial nullification. In fact,
     even 78 does not explicitly make the jump that interpreting the
     constitution and evaluating legislation is the same thing as
     nullifying legislation. I say this not to argue against "judicial
     review" - I'm a Hamiltonian - but to question whether the "even one
     participant" assertion is valid.

   Here is the tip: When it is suggested you read an article because it
   presents comprehensive textual, structural, and historical analysis in
   support of a particular conclusion abotu original meaning, do not
   dispute the conclusion on the basis of a few teaser quotes in a blog
   post. If you really care enough about the issue to write an email,
   then take a look at the article.
   WARNING: One of the burdens of being an originalist is that it
   obligates you to reserve judgment until you read the evidence, rather
   than merely speculate about what a particular passage might have
   meant.

References

   1. http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2005/04/judicial_review.html#005786

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh

Reply via email to