CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATIONS

Administrative Law

September 4, 2026

RE: STOPPING THE “ADMINISTRATIVE STATE”

The United States Constitution contains three separate clauses that use the phrase “shall be vested” (hereafter called “The Vesting Clauses”). They each read as follows: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. U.S. Const., Art. I, §… Continue reading

Constitutional Law

Administrative Law, Judicial Power, Separation of Powers

ABOUT THIS SITE

In the case of Marbury v. Madison, Vol.5 U.S. Reports, p.137 (1803), the United States Supreme Court ruled that “a law repugnant to the constitution is void.” 5 U.S. at p.180. The Court based that ruling on arguments made by one of the original Constitution’s draftsmen, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper No.78 (published in 1788). Hamilton argued that the document he was then promoting to become the federal “Constitution” would require the “courts” . . . “to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.” In other words, Hamilton, and later the Supreme Court argued that whenever the text or the purpose of an ordinary statute irreconcilably contradicts the text or opposes the clear purpose of the Constitution, the Constitution must prevail and the subordinate statute must be declared void. Today, the Supreme Court no longer follows these original standards for the judicial review of the validity of statutory enactments. At this site, I offer my understanding of how they should apply to modern issues of Constitutional Law. Supporting and opposing comments are welcome here, as long as they are relevant and civil.

Dan D. Rhea

Administrative Law

RE: STOPPING THE “ADMINISTRATIVE STATE”