Congress passing laws saps power from the Supreme Court, and is easier than Amending the Constitution.

The Supreme Court can then strike down those laws via judicial review, a power not enumerated in the constitution.

> a power not enumerated in the constitution.

But at least with two hundred years of general acceptance, so clearly there was something to it.

So, two hundred years of general acceptance (well, aside from that civil war thing where vastly differing fundamental interpretations of how the country can be governed were tested by the tried and true debating tactic of 'how many boys can we send over the trenches') is iron-clad.

But say, 80 years (FDR's expansion of executive power, which reactionaries in the courts are currently dismantling) is not?

Hardly anyone alive remembers it in any other way by this point, and everyone involved in setting that state of affairs has been dead and buried for a generation. And yet...

It's also strange how people seem to be fine to cherrypick a superset of (constitution + a bunch of other two-centuries old political babble), but exclude mountains of conflicting (two centuries-old political babble). It's almost as if the desired outcome is pre-determined, and we're just looking for fig leaves to justify it.

The idea of judicial review as unconstitutional is a fringe view not worth taking seriously. It was established by the framers during the time of the framers. It was a norm in law in the systems that preceded the Constitution, both in the colonies and in the post-revolutionary governments. It's mentioned in the Federalist Papers. When you're arguing with Publius, you're in crank territory.

I'm not arguing with Publius, I'm saying it would be preferable if it were explicitly stated -- same as e.g. a right to privacy or a less ambiguous 2nd amendment.

As for what the framers thought, Wikipedia has some choice quotes, including from Thomas Jefferson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_...