Readers React: Why a true ‘originalist’ on the Supreme Court shouldn’t vote to overturn any law
To the editor: I have been a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court for many years, and the court’s stature is important to me. The superficial understanding of the Constitution displayed by Ilya Shapiro in his piece calling for power to be shifted away from the federal government concerned me.
The Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court the power to strike down a law, as Shapiro implied. In 1803, in the Marbury vs. Madison opinion, the court arrogated to itself the power to question the constitutionality of parts of laws enacted by Congress, giving rise to a new power of the Supreme Court that has been followed ever since.
Thus, an “originalist,” as Shapiro seems to be, cannot look to the original Constitution as a basis to overturn “general welfare” legislation passed by the New Deal Congress.
Ralph H. Erickson, Malibu
Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook.
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
