Judicial review

"The founding fathers did not intend judicial review." This is near meaningless, the founding fathers were in my opinion brilliant and innovative for their time. Yes, but the laws are subject to change with the times. However the constitution is a staple in the U.S you can not say it should not be allowed because the founding fathers could not specifically establish it. But wtf are you talking about, of course the founding fathers would have wanted it, that is why they made the constitution. The constitution is essentially a base set of rights given to U.S citizens on the grounds of secularism and democracy primarily. Judicial review is essentially saying that you can not make laws that violate the U.S constitution, but you can add to it. Of course the founding fathers would believe that the constitution would play as a supreme set of rights/laws. Your first point just makes no sense. Why would the founding fathers write the constitution if they were okay with allowing legislation to be passed that allows for a national religion, or an Orwellian society come to life, that just does not fit, of course they would not want to allow any legislation in direct violation of the constitution. "Nothing about judicial review was in the Constitution." Maybe, however the constitution in not this document that served the purpose of being the only policy, no it was a collect set of laws on the grounds of secularism with its purpose being giving individual freedom to people to do as they see fit as long as no one else is harmed, and preventing tyranny. There can be other laws and policies of course unless you can show me where they specifically went against this, but that does not exist. But they cannot violate the simple rules of the constitution such as, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, protection from cruel and unusual punishment. That is the importance of judicial review, to PREVENT tyranny. "With judicial review, the supreme court has the power to strike down laws as it sees fit." No no no, it gives them the power to examine it and say, no, this directly violates the constitution in that place where it says a national religion could not be established, sorry this shall not be passed. Again how is this too much power? It checks for constitutional validity, that is just what judicial review is. "The problem with this is the legislative branch's job as clearly defined in the Constitution." Yeah I read it, and by definition you are laws. Lets see what you are referring to. "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Okay guys critical thinking what does that say "legislative powers" but what are legislative powers? Dictionary definition-the power to MAKE laws. http://www.dictionary.com... That is completely separate from striking down laws that violate the constitution, the judicial branch cannot MAKE laws, very different from judicial review. You blatantly misunderstood your definitions here. Yes the judicial branch can not make laws, very different thing. So there you go, if you vote, please do not count the sources and use that for the sources point. Only award sources point if some one used sources as evidence rather than explanation, please. In summary, judicial review is necessary.