IF i was taking aderal (which i dont) and someone told on me I would deny it then sue them for slander. I guess thats just me though
No, I think there is enough in the text of article iii to support it.
I think it is necessary. Legislators are encouraged to view new legislation more in terms of its popularity than its constitutionality, and I think the court is the logical place to check that. However, it puts great power in the hands of political appointees who while much more logically chosen and thoroughly vetted than legislators, are still human, partisan, and beholden to those who put them in their present positions. I don't mean this a a political comment aimed at any specific group, but rather an observation on an intrinsic and perhaps unavoidable weakness of the system.
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Enough text? Where? I see nothing in article III that says or even implies judicial review of congressional enactments. You have just done what every justice since Marshall has done, implying things that are not there. Why did it take until Marshall? John Jay didn't infer judicial review. The nation was in existence under the constitution for 14 years before someone came up with it.