Judicial Review is a power the courts took upon themselves in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. Thomas Jefferson refered to them as a despotic branch for doing so.

—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”

The Federalist probably like the idea of judicial review as they were loosing the political battle against the Democratic Republican party at that point and they still held the federal courts.

The U.S. Constitution was amended with the Bill of Rights because the people feared the tyranny of the Central government and wanted limits on it. Here is a government site that tells the story.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights.html

Ironic even back in the mid 1800’s Abraham Lincoln used the word “pervert” to describe the actions taken by membership composition of the ACLU.

You’re right. That should have read ‘the bill of rights,’ not the constitution.

“The final check to controlling the government is the majority of we the people.”

Some of founders thought so. Others also liked rights and judicial review.

“The entire reason we have a constitution is to prevent the tyranny of the majority”

Who told you that half truth. We fought a war against Great Britain and it was not because of the tyranny of the majority but rather against the tyranny of the central government.

The U.S. Constitution was created to limit the power of the central government by a series of checks and balances. The Bill of Rights was put in place to limit the government. The final check to controlling the government is the majority of we the people. The judicial branch violates it regularly because the people allowed our government to remove state control from the Senate.

There were three parts that would limit the power of the majority. The republican form of government as opposed to a democratic form. The state legislative control of the Senate (since removed), and the electoral system of electing Presidents (attempts are being made undermine it).

The main purpose was to prevent the majority of the people from being oppressed by a corrupt government.

well. too bad thats how you understand our rights.

You are in rare form today. So, the majority will force the minority to do something it does not want to to. Sounds like my sons moaning and groaning when they were growing up.

Perhaps we should scuttle the whole election process and appoint left wingers to run the government for us.

How about freedom of religion vs freedom from religion. I suppose you would be happier for the latter. The constitution that you claim to support says the former.

Sorry that I cannot accept a thing that you have said so far. However, it makes good reading.

The entire reason we have a constitution is to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

“Would you then accept it, or, would you cry sour grapes?”

I don’t accept unconstitutional majoritarianism.

How about if we put it to a vote of the people and the majority voted for freedom of religion, not your expressed desire of freedom from religion?

Would you then accept it, or, would you cry sour grapes?

I beg to differ with you. Sounds to me that you are a little out in left field and may have slightly exaggerated the facts. But, of course liberal tolerance is known for that.

I still believe that the founding fathers said that we have freedom of religion, not your viewpoint of freedom from religion.

We’re governed by the constitution, not the mayflower compact.