Judicial Vesting Clause

Words: 677
Pages: 3

Without arguing with the authors of law school textbooks (who are Constitutional experts), I must partially disagree that Justice Marshall was not the first to decide the Constitutionality of a statute. He was one of the justices presiding over decision to strike a law in the popular Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

The idea was begrudgingly endorsed by Alexander Hamilton in 1788 in Federalist No. 78 stating:
“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
…show more content…
As a person that sides (moderately) with originalism in reading the Constitution, I do believe that the SCOTUS has a role in striking down unconstitutional legislation using an originalist view of the Constitution. The text and video this week allude to the SCOTUS being unchecked. But that is not exactly …show more content…
III §1 (Judicial Vesting Clause) and Art. III § 2 (Exceptions Clause). Under the Judicial Vesting Clause, Congress has complete power over the jurisdiction of the inferior federal courts of the SCOTUS which legislation normally must move through in order to get to the appellate review of the SCOTUS. If this power is removed from inferior courts, then the SCOTUS is normally prevented appellate jurisdiction. The Exceptions Clause grants the SCOTUS with authority to hear appellate cases of federal questions with “with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” These tactics are sometimes called “jurisdiction stripping” which ironically is what Justice Marshall did to itself in Marbury. (Note- Congress cannot strip the specific cases the Constitution gives the SCOTUS original jurisdiction over which is narrowly defined as those issues over ambassadors, some public officials, and where states are suing each other, or lawsuits involving foreign countries and their citizens (Art. III