Judicial review is one thing, “final arbiter” is another. Nowadays, under the rubric of the Supreme Court as “final arbiter” (since Cooper v. Aaron (1958), at least), once the SCUS says something, people passively accept it. We could have judicial review as part of ongoing conversation concerning constitutional meaning, as Jefferson, Jackson, and even Lincoln advocated, but instead we have the current awful system.
I agree completely with what Dr. McClanahan says about review of state laws. FLETCHER V. PECK (1810) was a terrible decision, in every sense.
