Where is constitutional interpretation in the constitution?

Answer 1

Interpretation of the Constitution resides in the fact that we must read words that other people wrote and decide what they mean: that is interpretation. Everyone interprets the Constitution. Some people refer to the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution. This is based on the Court's role in declaring laws that they interpret as violating the Constitution to be unConstitutional. This power is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. It is based on the decision in the case Marbury v. Madison, written by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803. This precedent has stood until present times. There are legislative checks on this power available to Congress. Discussion of this power is reflected in Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention. More narrowly, those who look for a literal reading of the Constitution have some stumbling blocks to deal with. If we interpret the Constitution literally as our Founders wrote it, we must conclude that slavery is acceptable. Even if we allow amendment of the Constitution to alter our Founders' intentions (eg., by abolishing slavery), there are issues. Article I Section 8 lists the legislative powers of the Congress, and says that Congress may "raise and support armies" and "provide and maintain a navy." There is no provision for an air force, for instance. Apologists may say that these two phrases, plus technical advances, mean that the Constitution can be read to include the air force. That is interpreting the Constitution in order to adapt its principles to modern times, the very thing that literalists object to. So, because we all must read it, we all must interpret the Constitution. A closer look at the controversy between the literalists and their opponents reveals that the real quarrel is over the conclusions reached, not over the need for interpretation.

Answer 2

'''The very simple answer to this question is Article III of the United States Constitution'''. All of the following information is great and accurate.

It is considered to be the job of the legislative branch to create the laws, the job of the executive branch to carry out the laws, and the job of the judicial branch to interpret the law. However, this is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. It was more clearly established in the Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison (1803).

The issue in this case was that John Adams, in the closing hours of his presidency, had made several judicial appointments, which were signed and ready to be delivered, but not actually delivered. Upon taking office, Jefferson ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the commissions, since he was angry that Adams had attempted to pack the courts with federalist judges who disagreed with Jefferson's political views. One of those commissions was for a man named William Marbury. He took the matter to court.

The Supreme Court ruled that Marbury did, in fact, have the right to his commission, but that the Court did not have the right to rule on this issue. The Judiciary Act of 1789, which had given the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus (which could be used to force Madison to deliver the commission), contradicted the Constitution and was therefore invalid.

Thus, in this landmark case, the Supreme Court established the right of "judicial review," or the ability to say which laws are unconstitutional, essentially, interpreting the law.

Alexander Hamilton stated, about the power of interpretation of the law, "The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning."

It is not an enumerated power, not even implicitly, not to any one or all of the three branches combined, nor to the States. None of them were delegated that power by the Constitution, so it is reserved to the People (that's usually where the Jury is supposed to come in and play the role when interpretation is needed) under US Const. art. Amend. X and can be administered through either or both Amendments VI and VII.

"Being an instrument of limited and enumerated powers, it follows irresistibly, that what is not conferred, is withheld". New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 156, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992)