Ping...........
Roe v. Wade and Øbamacare would suggest otherwise...
Article Three should be completely rewritten with much firmer language to rein in the power hungry judiciary we have today.
Just an aside for further consideration:
I would point out that after having justified the obligation to review in order to decide for the Constitution only on the basis of the oath of office, saying that to require a justice to take such an oath and yet close his eyes to the Constitution and see only the statutory laws would be worse than a solemn mockery, that Marshall actually, expressly notes that officials in other departments take the same oath.
Other departments: Congress or the President
So what is it to require those to close their eyes to the Constitution and see only the opinions of the Court?
I would also point out two more things.
Firstly that an obligation that only arises because of a requirement for fidelity, faithfulness is not a power to engage in unfaithfulness, to make shit up as they go along as the modern Court has done.
Secondly, the Original Right to make Law is necessary to determine meaning because it can actually be easier to demonstrate what those who ratified the Constitution agreed to, or were led to believe they were agreeing to, than to play the game of writer’s intent that the so-called “progressives” have learned to abuse so well.
For example, the issue with the so-called general welfare clause. It should be an observation too obvious to have to make that when Hamilton wrote of this as an excuse to spend on objects besides those actually delegated for it was AFTER ratification, when he was serving as an official in a government enacted by the Constitution. When he opined is of vital importance because his opinion given after ratification cannot be said to have formed any basis for what those who ratified may be said to have agreed to.
Before ratification of the Constitution, Hamilton made no such claim. Indeed he made a stirring defense of the absolute nature of the doctrine of delegated powers to argue against the subsequent ratification of the Bill of Rights. He certainly did not disagree with Madison when he (Madison) wrote in response to charges by antifederalist concerning this language before ratification.
Moreover, examine what the antifederalist were saying: in characterizing the very use of the language that Hamilton would later adopt as abuses of same language they showed that they too understood what those advising those with the power to ratify were saying ... that the purpose of the language is only to qualify the power to tax, not to grant plenary powers to spend for the “general welfare”.
It is clear then that those who agreed to ratify agreed to this understanding, not the abuse. If Hamilton privately held a contrary views is meaningless for Hamilton was not Sovereign to make Law from the Constitution. That power belonged to the States assembled.
As an official in the government speaking up later, after ratification, contradicting what he and others had said before ratification, Hamilton spoke out of turn, he opined spuriously.
Ratification is like that moment in a wedding when the minister invites folks to speak now or forever hold their peace ... Hamilton waited till after the vows had been taken and should have kept his views to himself rather than engage in / advocate lawlessness.
Judge Marshall should have been tarred & feathered over Marbury.
Precedent, the act of writing an opinion that becomes part of the law, that is the problem. The law is the law, opinions are like rectums everyone has one.
Lawyers should be abolished and anyone advocating for one should be declared a lawyer and be summarily executed.
We simply do not need craftily written laws, or crafty interpreters of the same. It is a curse given to us by Kings, and it should have been discarded along with the King of England.