:::::::::I think that's fine. Are you going to make the changes or should I?  
 :::::::::Regarding judicial review, and the power to strike down legislation, I don't agree that those powers are not in the Constitution. Certainly, they are not specifically stated, but there are some implied powers in the text, in the sense that the text imposes duties and requirements on bodies which are only possible through the excercise of a power not explicitly granted. Thus, for example, Article I nowhere states that Congress can run a decennial census - but in order to meet the requirements of Art. I, §2, Cl. 3, Congress must hold a census. Likewise, the court is granted certain duties in Article III, and even if one assumes that judicial review is not inherently part of "the judicial power", those powers and duties granted cannot be excercised absent the power to strike down laws. 
 :::::::::I should stress that I am not surrendering to The Living Constitution; there is a vast difference, in my view, between obviously and necessarily implied powers, and the atextual "penumbras" of Justice Douglas (Griswold, Roe, etc.).  7 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)