How to replace Judial Review

[kaz]

Actually I addressed that in the op. In fact, the whole op is about the subject of having States and not the Federal Government limit Federal powers. This whole thread is about how to better protect individual freedoms. You're a completely useless poster. You're just a troll. Here is my advice to myself and everyone else regarding you.

In essense, aren't you arguing for nullification?

He's arguing for a system that would make it more likely conservatives controlled judicial review.

I'm arguing for balancing State power with Federal power. I'm counting heavily on that Democratic State legislators are not going to like having their stuff taken by DC Democrats either. I think that's a pretty safe bet. There's nothing selfless about the left.

 

[Uncensored2008]

He's arguing for a system that would make it more likely conservatives controlled judicial review.

Ah, because conservatives control the Senate...

You Obamunists are so smart...

 

[M14 Shooter]

In the late 1800's the SCOTUS ruled that the right to bear arms is NOT dependent on the Constitution and that Congress has not right to regulate it,

Case and language, please.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.
United States v. Cruikshank - 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

.

This supports your staatement that 1800's the SCOTUS ruled that the right to bear arms is NOT dependent on the Constitution. Please do continue.

And while your low-res crayon may force you to use big letters, doing so does nothing to make your point any more sound.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Another "we've got to do something to stop Obama" thread.

Another example of an anti-gun loon arguing from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your partner in crime questioned whether SCOTUS had ever ruled that the right to bear arms is extraconstitutional and not subjected to Congressional regulation.

Non sequitur. Cruickshank says no such thing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Read up, honeybuns.

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2040&context=facpub

Marbury is classically thought of as having established judicial review… It is not novel to counter this point of view by observing that, before Marbury, judicial review had gained wide support.526 This Article, however, moves the debate about Marbury's significance forward by showing how relatively common the exercise of judicial review was before Marbury. The fact that judicial review was exercised much more frequently than previously recognized in the years before Marbury helps explain why Marshall's assertion of the power to exercise judicial review in the case elicited so little comment and also highlights the consistency between Marbury and the prior body of case law.

Given the evidence above and provided elsewhere in this thread, it’s clear that the ‘classical’ perception of Marbury is at least inaccurate, where the appropriate understanding of the case was to reaffirm the long-standing practice of judicial review. Chief Justice Marshall neither ‘invented’ judicial review nor did the Court “[give] itself the power to decide what the Constitution means,” as it already possessed that power, a power it inherited as the progeny of centuries of other English and Colonial courts.

Can you cite an example where the top judicial venue in the Amercan colonies invalidated a law because it ran afoul of the English constitution, a colonial charter, a state constitution, the articles of Confederation or the US constitution, prior to Marbury?
Case and date, please.

Still looking for a response.

 

[Contumacious]

Case and language, please.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.
United States v. Cruikshank - 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

.

This supports your staatement that 1800's the SCOTUS ruled that the right to bear arms is NOT dependent on the Constitution. Please do continue.

And while your low-res crayon may force you to use big letters, doing so does nothing to make your point any more sound.

If you provide me your zip code I will direct you to a night school where they can teach how to comprehend English.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In essense, aren't you arguing for nullification?

He's arguing for a system that would make it more likely conservatives controlled judicial review.

I'm arguing for balancing State power with Federal power. I'm counting heavily on that Democratic State legislators are not going to like having their stuff taken by DC Democrats either. I think that's a pretty safe bet. There's nothing selfless about the left.

Or the right. Neither party is going to permit the individual states to have any say in a nullification of the 17th Amendment. Neither will the citizens of the various states.

 

[M14 Shooter]

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.
United States v. Cruikshank - 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

.

This supports your staatement that 1800's the SCOTUS ruled that the right to bear arms is NOT dependent on the Constitution. Please do continue.

And while your low-res crayon may force you to use big letters, doing so does nothing to make your point any more sound.

If you provide me your zip code I will direct you to a night school where they can teach how to comprehend English.

.

Translation:
You know you cannot show how the language in Cruickshank states that Congress (et al) cannot regulate the rights protected by the 2nd.
Thank you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS in Heller has said differently, that the Congress can regulate as necessary.