Can the Supreme Court Change the Constitution Using Judicial Review? [No. 86]

Does the power of judicial review imply that the Supreme Court can change the Constitution?
Professor Steven Calabresi points out that there is no specific clause in the Constitution that grants the power of judicial review. Rather, the Court concluded that such a power must exist to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution, according to Federalist 78. If the primary duty of the Court is to ensure the superiority of the Constitution over statutory law, then the Court clearly cannot change the Constitution itself.
Professor Steven G. Calabresi is the Clayton J. & Henry R. Barber Professor of Law at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. He is Chairman of the Federalist Society's Board of Directors.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Subscribe to the series’ playlist:
• Constitutional Law [Co...

[@Dragontron20]

Article 6: This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in the Pursuance thereof [...] shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

[@syedalam8664]

Based on the majority opinion, to what degree was the Supreme Court Responsible for undoing the constitutional gains of Reconstruction?

[@sharifali5384]

The problem with the way that they had arrived at the Constitution allowing judicial review is twofold. First, he Constitution was written to be a constraint on federal powers. Meaning that it should allow for unwritten expansion of federal power. Second, the Constitution is both law and a contract. Like ammendments or changes to any contract all parties must accept said changes for the changes to be valid. The Constitution and every Ammendment was/needed to be ratified by at least 69% of the states. The Supreme Court's unwritten change was never ratified. Additionally, when the Supreme Court reinterprets part of the Constitution, this would also qualify as a change , this would require ratification like any other Constitutional change. Going back to the first sentence, gleaming framers intent is not valid as the Constitution is a contract, between the Federal government and the people through their state legislatures. One sided, non-accepted/signed changes to contracts have never been legally valid.

[@gizaegypt9481]

No !@!

[@robinhood20253]

The Congress and even POTUS are elected officials. The SCOTUS is appointed and currently outsourced to a private interest group. The legislative and executive branches should be more representative of we the people than the judiciary. Currently SCOTUS under Justice Roberts, do not reflect the will of the people or the Constitution but personal and political ideology.

[@gizaegypt9481]

It's a standard in 1700s standard of cannon maritime law. As to definition an standing.

[@ericpham8205]

The judicial review should goes back to congress before president sign it then that is a perfect system

[@ericpham8205]

Or would living together without marriage is it a violation of law or would marriage certificate considered as a imprisonment of women or men or child support was a scheme to raise raper children that women did not want