Letter: Supreme Court not Constitutional interpreter

Bruce Kempkes asserts in his Nov. 13 guest column that the Supreme Court's opinion in 1803, Marbury v. Madison, enshrines if not establishes the 'principle” of Judicial Review ('Victory for an independent judiciary”). He then goes on to define Judicial Review as the ultimate Constitutional authority in American government, superior to both the Legislative and Executive branches. He is wrong on both points.

First, in its 1803 Marbury v Madison opinion, the court merely exercised a right they already possessed by virtue of their oath of office to preserve and protect the Constitution. The power of that oath allows any court to review a law or action by the other branches in cases that come before it. In this instance their opinion rightly determined that a portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that Marbury used as the basis for his suit was unconstitutional, hence, Marbury lost his case.

Second, our Constitution does not bestow exclusive interpretation to the courts. Why? Because every president and every legislator also takes an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution as they understand it and not as its understood by some court. This Constitutional truth motivated President Lincoln and his Congress to ignore the Supreme Court's disastrous 1857 Dred Scott decision which protected slavery. This is why as part of our system of checks and balances there's not only a role for Judicial Review but also for Legislative Review and Executive Review.

Aaron Rivera

Blairstown