Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
For the first time in human history the government turned over power to the people and even listed the the rights of free people in the first ten Amendments. You can nit-pick about intents and reluctance to sign the document but it was truly a milestone in human history and every free nation since 1776 has patterned itself from the concept of free elections and the will of the people. Every American should be thankful that they live in the greatest Country in the world but sadly it seems that radical lefties are never happy.
For the first time in human history the government turned over power to the people and even listed the the rights of free people in the first ten Amendments. You can nit-pick about intents and reluctance to sign the document but it was truly a milestone in human history and every free nation since 1776 has patterned itself from the concept of free elections and the will of the people. Every American should be thankful that they live in the greatest Country in the world but sadly it seems that radical lefties are never happy.
I don't think it was the first time governments were based on people. And if the writers had insisted that they follow the law of the land there would have been no Consititution at that time. The founders changed the requirement of needing 13 votes to 9. And of course the Constitution was based on liberal ideas from the Age of Englightenment and Reason.
What do you lefties think we think we know about Hamilton and Madison? Hamilton was a Revolutionary War Soldier. He risked everything for freedom and the US Constitution. Founding Father Madison gave everything he had to create the greatest Country on the planet. Franklin said it best, "we must hang together or surely we will hang separately" and they truly risked their lives and fortunes. I'm sure Soros tax exempt Media Matters isn't adverse to cherry picking statements from the Founding Fathers and creating a fake conspiracy just like they do with modern conservatives so go for it hate-America lefties.
The states ratified the Constitution based on the intent and assurances of that intent by those that crafted the Constitution. If you sign a contract do you want the other side of the contract changing the terms of the contract whenever it suits their purposes? That's called fraud.
How many contracts do you know of that have an AMENDMENT PROCESS BUILT IN? You do realize that the Constitution has been changed and reinterpreted at almost every point of it's existence, right?
It is up to the states to finally ratify an amendment, rather than just one side of the agreement ignoring the Constitution and doing what it likes. If you and I enter into a contract and choose, after the fact, to change the nature of some part of that contract then there is no problem. However, if I simply come to the conclusion that some part of that contract is not in my best interests and decide to ignore it at your expense then I am guilty of fraud.
For the first time in human history the government turned over power to the people and even listed the the rights of free people in the first ten Amendments. You can nit-pick about intents and reluctance to sign the document but it was truly a milestone in human history and every free nation since 1776 has patterned itself from the concept of free elections and the will of the people. Every American should be thankful that they live in the greatest Country in the world but sadly it seems that radical lefties are never happy.
I don't think it was the first time governments were based on people. And if the writers had insisted that they follow the law of the land there would have been no Consititution at that time. The founders changed the requirement of needing 13 votes to 9. And of course the Constitution was based on liberal ideas from the Age of Englightenment and Reason.
Think again. It was he first time in human history that government power was delegated to the people without any secret back door ministers or moderate monarchy influence. It's the first time in history that the military was placed under the control of elected civilians. Live it, love it and appreciate it.
Some of the people that helped write the Constitution refused to sign the finished document.
Article one, Section eight, clause eighteen, the necessary and proper clause, gave the Congress some leeway in deciding what was Constitutional and what was not.
The Amendment process is difficult and only 27 have passed thus far and there are a few proposals still floating around with no termination date. The California Constitution, for example, is easier to amend and it probably has close to five hundred amendments.
The biggie in changing the Constitution has been simple useage and Court decisions. The Court was never given the power per se to interpret the Constitution nor declare a law of Congress unconstitutional but it took that power unto itself in 1803.
The Federalist papers were simply letters to the editor by Madison, Hamilton and Jay. All wanted the Constitution to be ratified. Of the nine states required to ratify some of the votes were fairly close.
It was not believed there would be political parties so no accomodation was made in the Constitution. But the battle over ratification began the political parties.
Had Jefferson been at the convention we might have a different document today. He was in Paris.
The convention was held in secret, and supposedly no word got out. But after a hard day debating some of the delegates would meet in the local taverns.
The antiFederalists, later to be the Jeffersonians later to be the Republicans, and finally to become today's Democratic party insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would vote for ratification.
Some of the people that helped write the Constitution refused to sign the finished document.
Article one, Section eight, clause eighteen, the necessary and proper clause, gave the Congress some leeway in deciding what was Constitutional and what was not.
The Amendment process is difficult and only 27 have passed thus far and there are a few proposals still floating around with no termination date. The California Constitution, for example, is easier to amend and it probably has close to five hundred amendments.
The biggie in changing the Constitution has been simple useage and Court decisions. The Court was never given the power per se to interpret the Constitution nor declare a law of Congress unconstitutional but it took that power unto itself in 1803.
The Federalist papers were simply letters to the editor by Madison, Hamilton and Jay. All wanted the Constitution to be ratified. Of the nine states required to ratify some of the votes were fairly close.
It was not believed there would be political parties so no accomodation was made in the Constitution. But the battle over ratification began the political parties.
Had Jefferson been at the convention we might have a different document today. He was in Paris.
The convention was held in secret, and supposedly no word got out. But after a hard day debating some of the delegates would meet in the local taverns.
The antiFederalists, later to be the Jeffersonians later to be the Republicans, and finally to become today's Democratic party insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would vote for ratification.
Repeating the misinformed, ignorant myth that the Supreme Court took the power to declare a law of Congress unconstitutional unto itself in 1803, shows how little you know. Judicial review as a constitutional principle had been growing in the 15 years since the adoption of the US Constitution. According to Jeffrey Rosen, in his book The Supreme Court (2006), the status of judicial review was growing but not a foregone conclusion before Marbury. The founders and framers were in constant disagreement over many things. But judicial review has been the bedrock of the Supreme Court's power for most of American history.
Jefferson and Madison, and their Republican compatriots, lost many battles to Hamilton and Marshall, and their Federalist brethren. This was one of them. Madison and other ended up supporting the Federalist principle. Jefferson as a hold out -- alone in his madness -- ends up a pathetic figure clinging to an imaginary utopian world where his principles and romanticism trumped reality. Sort of like a Ron Paul with a slave holding Plantation/Mansion in Virginia.
Some of the people that helped write the Constitution refused to sign the finished document.
Article one, Section eight, clause eighteen, the necessary and proper clause, gave the Congress some leeway in deciding what was Constitutional and what was not.
The Amendment process is difficult and only 27 have passed thus far and there are a few proposals still floating around with no termination date. The California Constitution, for example, is easier to amend and it probably has close to five hundred amendments.
The biggie in changing the Constitution has been simple useage and Court decisions. The Court was never given the power per se to interpret the Constitution nor declare a law of Congress unconstitutional but it took that power unto itself in 1803.
The Federalist papers were simply letters to the editor by Madison, Hamilton and Jay. All wanted the Constitution to be ratified. Of the nine states required to ratify some of the votes were fairly close.
It was not believed there would be political parties so no accomodation was made in the Constitution. But the battle over ratification began the political parties.
Had Jefferson been at the convention we might have a different document today. He was in Paris.
The convention was held in secret, and supposedly no word got out. But after a hard day debating some of the delegates would meet in the local taverns.
The antiFederalists, later to be the Jeffersonians later to be the Republicans, and finally to become today's Democratic party insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would vote for ratification.
Repeating the misinformed, ignorant myth that the Supreme Court took the power to declare a law of Congress unconstitutional unto itself in 1803, shows how little you know. Judicial review as a constitutional principle had been growing in the 15 years since the adoption of the US Constitution. According to Jeffrey Rosen, in his book The Supreme Court (2006), the status of judicial review was growing but not a foregone conclusion before Marbury. The founders and framers were in constant disagreement over many things. But judicial review has been the bedrock of the Supreme Court's power for most of American history.
Jefferson and Madison, and their Republican compatriots, lost many battles to Hamilton and Marshall, and their Federalist brethren. This was one of them. Madison and other ended up supporting the Federalist principle. Jefferson as a hold out -- alone in his madness -- ends up a pathetic figure clinging to an imaginary utopian world where his principles and romanticism trumped reality. Sort of like a Ron Paul with a slave holding Plantation/Mansion in Virginia.
So where in the Constitution is the power of judicial review given to the Court? It may have been implied, accepted, thought about, agreed upon but where is it written? If if is not there and it is not, then the Court created law.
Repeating the misinformed, ignorant myth that the Supreme Court took the power to declare a law of Congress unconstitutional unto itself in 1803, shows how little you know. Judicial review as a constitutional principle had been growing in the 15 years since the adoption of the US Constitution. According to Jeffrey Rosen, in his book The Supreme Court (2006), the status of judicial review was growing but not a foregone conclusion before Marbury. The founders and framers were in constant disagreement over many things. But judicial review has been the bedrock of the Supreme Court's power for most of American history.
Jefferson and Madison, and their Republican compatriots, lost many battles to Hamilton and Marshall, and their Federalist brethren. This was one of them. Madison and other ended up supporting the Federalist principle. Jefferson as a hold out -- alone in his madness -- ends up a pathetic figure clinging to an imaginary utopian world where his principles and romanticism trumped reality. Sort of like a Ron Paul with a slave holding Plantation/Mansion in Virginia.
So where in the Constitution is the power of judicial review given to the Court? It may have been implied, accepted, thought about, agreed upon but where is it written? If if is not there and it is not, then the Court created law.
Judicial review is not law. So no law was created. The Framers themselves argued over powers in the Constitution implied or otherwise, amongst themselves. This we know for a fact.
Read arguments about "in the instrument' and 'intent' -- fascinating stuff even today. Especially today.
regent: If you mean to imply that because you disagree with the power of judicial review, that all laws reviewed by the Supreme Court and struck down by it, is a case for the Court making law -- then you are in disagreement with the founders and the framers -- excepting Jefferson and a few others. Even Madison eventually went along with the principle. Proof? Look at what Madison did while President.
The states ratified the Constitution based on the intent and assurances of that intent by those that crafted the Constitution. If you sign a contract do you want the other side of the contract changing the terms of the contract whenever it suits their purposes? That's called fraud.
The states ratified the Constitution based on the intent and assurances of that intent by those that crafted the Constitution. If you sign a contract do you want the other side of the contract changing the terms of the contract whenever it suits their purposes? That's called fraud.
Some of the people that helped write the Constitution refused to sign the finished document.
Article one, Section eight, clause eighteen, the necessary and proper clause, gave the Congress some leeway in deciding what was Constitutional and what was not.
The Amendment process is difficult and only 27 have passed thus far and there are a few proposals still floating around with no termination date. The California Constitution, for example, is easier to amend and it probably has close to five hundred amendments.
The biggie in changing the Constitution has been simple useage and Court decisions. The Court was never given the power per se to interpret the Constitution nor declare a law of Congress unconstitutional but it took that power unto itself in 1803.
The Federalist papers were simply letters to the editor by Madison, Hamilton and Jay. All wanted the Constitution to be ratified. Of the nine states required to ratify some of the votes were fairly close.
It was not believed there would be political parties so no accomodation was made in the Constitution. But the battle over ratification began the political parties.
Had Jefferson been at the convention we might have a different document today. He was in Paris.
The convention was held in secret, and supposedly no word got out. But after a hard day debating some of the delegates would meet in the local taverns.
The antiFederalists, later to be the Jeffersonians later to be the Republicans, and finally to become today's Democratic party insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would vote for ratification.
Repeating the misinformed, ignorant myth that the Supreme Court took the power to declare a law of Congress unconstitutional unto itself in 1803, shows how little you know. Judicial review as a constitutional principle had been growing in the 15 years since the adoption of the US Constitution. According to Jeffrey Rosen, in his book The Supreme Court (2006), the status of judicial review was growing but not a foregone conclusion before Marbury. The founders and framers were in constant disagreement over many things. But judicial review has been the bedrock of the Supreme Court's power for most of American history.
Jefferson and Madison, and their Republican compatriots, lost many battles to Hamilton and Marshall, and their Federalist brethren. This was one of them. Madison and other ended up supporting the Federalist principle. Jefferson as a hold out -- alone in his madness -- ends up a pathetic figure clinging to an imaginary utopian world where his principles and romanticism trumped reality. Sort of like a Ron Paul with a slave holding Plantation/Mansion in Virginia.
So where in the Constitution is the power of judicial review given to the Court? It may have been implied, accepted, thought about, agreed upon but where is it written? If if is not there and it is not, then the Court created law.
regent: If you mean to imply that because you disagree with the power of judicial review, that all laws reviewed by the Supreme Court and struck down by it, is a case for the Court making law -- then you are in disagreement with the founders and the framers -- excepting Jefferson and a few others. Even Madison eventually went along with the principle. Proof? Look at what Madison did while President.
Whether I disagree with judicial review is immaterial, and if the framers intended to have judicial review and some did, it should be in the Constitution in black and white. It isn't. So the Court made an interpretation and of nothing and declared judicial review. It was a brilliant step by Marshall, but the irony of the case is the Court now talks of overstepping the Constitution.
Whatever practices may have a tendency to disturb the harmony between the States, are proper objects of federal superintendence and control.
It may be esteemed the basis of the Union, that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States." And if it be a just principle that every government OUGHT TO POSSESS THE MEANS OF EXECUTING ITS OWN PROVISIONS BY ITS OWN AUTHORITY, it will follow, that in order to the inviolable maintenance of that equality of privileges and immunities to which the citizens of the Union will be entitled, the national judiciary ought to preside in all cases in which one State or its citizens are opposed to another State or its citizens. To secure the full effect of so fundamental a provision against all evasion and subterfuge, it is necessary that its construction should be committed to that tribunal which, having no local attachments, will be likely to be impartial between the different States and their citizens, and which, owing its official existence to the Union, will never be likely to feel any bias inauspicious to the principles on which it is founded.
Federalist Papers: FEDERALIST No. 80
From this review of the particular powers of the federal judiciary, as marked out in the Constitution, it appears that they are all conformable to the principles which ought to have governed the structure of that department, and which were necessary to the perfection of the system. If some partial inconviences should appear to be connected with the incorporation of any of them into the plan, it ought to be recollected that the national legislature will have ample authority to make such EXCEPTIONS, and to prescribe such regulations as will be calculated to obviate or remove these inconveniences. The possibility of particular mischiefs can never be viewed, by a wellinformed mind, as a solid objection to a general principle, which is calculated to avoid general mischiefs and to obtain general advantages.
Here are a couple of thoughts from Federalist No. 80.
Whatever practices may have a tendency to disturb the harmony between the States, are proper objects of federal superintendence and control.
It may be esteemed the basis of the Union, that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States." And if it be a just principle that every government OUGHT TO POSSESS THE MEANS OF EXECUTING ITS OWN PROVISIONS BY ITS OWN AUTHORITY, it will follow, that in order to the inviolable maintenance of that equality of privileges and immunities to which the citizens of the Union will be entitled, the national judiciary ought to preside in all cases in which one State or its citizens are opposed to another State or its citizens. To secure the full effect of so fundamental a provision against all evasion and subterfuge, it is necessary that its construction should be committed to that tribunal which, having no local attachments, will be likely to be impartial between the different States and their citizens, and which, owing its official existence to the Union, will never be likely to feel any bias inauspicious to the principles on which it is founded.
Federalist Papers: FEDERALIST No. 80
Though History has shown us that the Court is not immune to Partiality, too many 5/4 split decisions that abandon reason, it was the intention to have the Court take responsibility here. I wouldn't argue that. What one does with that responsibility is another matter. The End does not Justify the Means. I'm not sure Hamilton ever learned that. Personally, I think it was the Death of Him. It is not enough to have the Authority. You must show Cause. It is not about having the Authority, but using it to the best of your ability to Serve Justice, not Convenience. One feeds Integrity, the other Laziness. I have a lot more respect for Pre Ratification Hamilton, than Dr. Hyde.
That other thought......
From this review of the particular powers of the federal judiciary, as marked out in the Constitution, it appears that they are all conformable to the principles which ought to have governed the structure of that department, and which were necessary to the perfection of the system. If some partial inconviences should appear to be connected with the incorporation of any of them into the plan, it ought to be recollected that the national legislature will have ample authority to make such EXCEPTIONS, and to prescribe such regulations as will be calculated to obviate or remove these inconveniences. The possibility of particular mischiefs can never be viewed, by a wellinformed mind, as a solid objection to a general principle, which is calculated to avoid general mischiefs and to obtain general advantages.
On that other thought,
Who knew, huh...........
From this review of the particular powers of the federal judiciary, as marked out in the Constitution, it appears that they are all conformable to the principles which ought to have governed the structure of that department, and which were necessary to the perfection of the system. If some partial inconviences should appear to be connected with the incorporation of any of them into the plan, it ought to be recollected that the national legislature will have ample authority to make such EXCEPTIONS, and to prescribe such regulations as will be calculated to obviate or remove these inconveniences. The possibility of particular mischiefs can never be viewed, by a wellinformed mind, as a solid objection to a general principle, which is calculated to avoid general mischiefs and to obtain general advantages.
I can't help but wonder how much inconvenience would be avoided if Congress actually read and debated proposed Legislation before signing and Ratifying it?
I can't imagine why it is not a Crime to not do so?
So when the Congress Fails us, and the Court fails us, where are we??? .... Oh yeah.... Right here.
Here are a couple of thoughts from Federalist No. 80.
Whatever practices may have a tendency to disturb the harmony between the States, are proper objects of federal superintendence and control.
It may be esteemed the basis of the Union, that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States." And if it be a just principle that every government OUGHT TO POSSESS THE MEANS OF EXECUTING ITS OWN PROVISIONS BY ITS OWN AUTHORITY, it will follow, that in order to the inviolable maintenance of that equality of privileges and immunities to which the citizens of the Union will be entitled, the national judiciary ought to preside in all cases in which one State or its citizens are opposed to another State or its citizens. To secure the full effect of so fundamental a provision against all evasion and subterfuge, it is necessary that its construction should be committed to that tribunal which, having no local attachments, will be likely to be impartial between the different States and their citizens, and which, owing its official existence to the Union, will never be likely to feel any bias inauspicious to the principles on which it is founded.
Federalist Papers: FEDERALIST No. 80
Though History has shown us that the Court is not immune to Partiality, too many 5/4 split decisions that abandon reason, it was the intention to have the Court take responsibility here. I wouldn't argue that. What one does with that responsibility is another matter. The End does not Justify the Means. I'm not sure Hamilton ever learned that. Personally, I think it was the Death of Him. It is not enough to have the Authority. You must show Cause. It is not about having the Authority, but using it to the best of your ability to Serve Justice, not Convenience. One feeds Integrity, the other Laziness. I have a lot more respect for Pre Ratification Hamilton, than Dr. Hyde.
That other thought......
From this review of the particular powers of the federal judiciary, as marked out in the Constitution, it appears that they are all conformable to the principles which ought to have governed the structure of that department, and which were necessary to the perfection of the system. If some partial inconviences should appear to be connected with the incorporation of any of them into the plan, it ought to be recollected that the national legislature will have ample authority to make such EXCEPTIONS, and to prescribe such regulations as will be calculated to obviate or remove these inconveniences. The possibility of particular mischiefs can never be viewed, by a wellinformed mind, as a solid objection to a general principle, which is calculated to avoid general mischiefs and to obtain general advantages.
On that other thought,
Who knew, huh...........
From this review of the particular powers of the federal judiciary, as marked out in the Constitution, it appears that they are all conformable to the principles which ought to have governed the structure of that department, and which were necessary to the perfection of the system. If some partial inconviences should appear to be connected with the incorporation of any of them into the plan, it ought to be recollected that the national legislature will have ample authority to make such EXCEPTIONS, and to prescribe such regulations as will be calculated to obviate or remove these inconveniences. The possibility of particular mischiefs can never be viewed, by a wellinformed mind, as a solid objection to a general principle, which is calculated to avoid general mischiefs and to obtain general advantages.
I can't help but wonder how much inconvenience would be avoided if Congress actually read and debated proposed Legislation before signing and Ratifying it?
I can't imagine why it is not a Crime to not do so?
So when the Congress Fails us, and the Court fails us, where are we??? .... Oh yeah.... Right here.
If the Federalist Papers were the law of the land I would agree, but the Federalist Papers are simply a group of letters to the editor and as most letters to the editor have no legal force. The Federalist-Marshall Court took it upon themselves to interpret the Constitution giving themselves tremendous power. In fact, can anyone cite the clause of the Constitution where the Marshall Court found this power? The arguments supporting the Marbury case, that judicial review is is implied, needed, good, or letters to the editor supported it, made the Court stronger while may be true are nonsense--Constitutionally. It was a great gambit by Marshall, he killed a Judicial Act that was on its face, illegal and made Jefferson and the Republicans happy about that, for a time, but changed the Constitution.
The issue
Inscription on the wall of the Supreme Court Building from Marbury v. Madison, in which Chief Justice John Marshall outlined the concept of judicial review.
There are three ways a case can be heard in the Supreme Court: (1) filing directly in the Supreme Court; (2) filing in a lower federal court, such as a district court, and appealing all the way up to the Supreme Court; (3) filing in a state court, appealing all the way up through the state's highest courts, and then appealing to the Supreme Court on an issue of federal law. The first is an exercise of the Court's original jurisdiction; the second and third are exercises of the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction.
Because Marbury filed his petition for the writ of mandamus directly in the Supreme Court, the Court needed to be able to exercise original jurisdiction over the case in order to have the power to hear it.[citation needed]
Marbury's argument is that in the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over petitions for writs of mandamus. This raises several issues that the Supreme Court had to address:[citation needed]
Does Article III of the Constitution create a "floor" for original jurisdiction, which Congress can add to, or does it create an exhaustive list that Congress can't modify at all?
If Article III's original jurisdiction is an exhaustive list, but Congress tries to modify it anyway, who wins that conflict, Congress or the Constitution?
And, more importantly, who is supposed to decide who wins?
In its answer to this last question, the Supreme Court formalizes the notion of judicial review. In short, the constitutional issue on which Marbury v. Madison was decided was whether Congress could expand the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.[22]
Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Marbury can also be criticized on grounds that it was improper for the Court to consider any issues beyond jurisdiction. After concluding that the Court lacked jurisdiction in the case, the further review regarding the substantive issues presented was arguably improper.[40] Also, it has been argued that Justice Marshall should have recused himself on the grounds that he was still acting Secretary of State at the time the commissions were to be delivered and it was his brother, James Marshall, who was charged with delivering a number of the commissions.[41]
Because the Constitution lacks a clear statement authorizing the Federal courts to nullify the acts of coequal branches, critics contend that the argument for judicial review must rely on a significant gloss on the Constitution's terms. Despite such criticisms of Marbury v. Madison, judicial review has been accepted in the American legal community.
Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
