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.
The idea that courts could nullify statutes originated in England with Chief Justice Edward Coke's 1610 opinion in Dr. Bonhams Case, 8 Co. Rep. 107a. Call me a liar all you want, but you merely reveal your own ignorance.
Marbury was merely the first Supreme Court case to exercise a power that already existed and was acknowledged. I already provided a detailed explanation of why, and your failure to comprehend it is on you.
Marbury is where the Supreme Court gaves itself authority to do something that isn't in the Constitution. Your failure to comprehend that is on you.
How many people in here even know what Marbury v Madison was about, or how it was decided? I'll wait while everyone rushes to their Google.
It was the case where the Supreme Court gave itself the authority to determine whether or not a law was constitutional.
Not an answer.
Do you really want all the details? I can give them to you since that was the topic of my graduate school thesis.
Great go ahead and post a link or give a summary.
I think we need to have this discussion.
All people should have equal authority to decide what is constitutional,
and then we should use the proper venues for establishing that as law by AGREEMENT.
I do not agree with this dangerous trend of giving "final power" to the Court.
Not enough check, and the conflicts should be resolved BEFORE it gets to that point.
(note becuase of the delays caused by the legal procedures, and also flipping back and forth from Courts to kick back to legislatures, in the meantime, justice is denied to whichever side of the conflict is not served or represented while the law flips this way or that way. some cases cannot afford to drag out, or it's the same as justice denied. So mediation and consensus at the start would prevent one or both sides from suffering losses or imposition in the meantime)
It's like the difference between going through a process using an "essay format" or Q&A
versus trying to boil things down to a "true/false" yes/no question.
All issues needs to be hashed out in advance.
Not lump them together into two sides and let the court rubber stamp this or that.
Most of these conflicts I see now are already set up to fail.
So either way the court rules, someone loses because the issues/questions/laws weren't written out right to begin with.
So if you feed badly Worded questions into a true/false computer you still don't get the answers to the REAL problems.
...
What John Marshall stated in the opinion produced an "extra-Constitutional usurpation of power by the judiciary". By declaring a law passed by Congress and signed by the President as being in violation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court gaves itself the ability to do something that the Constitution does not.
...
pffft!...
Would you like any more details. I have about 30 more pages.
Maybe maybe not. Isn't that interesting?So is a law Constitutional unless the Court declares it unconstitutional? Are we obeying laws that would be found unconstitutional if they went before the Court?
Add to the framers omission of stating in the Constitution the power of the Court to declare a law unconstitutional they also didn't require a member of the Supreme Court or most courts to have a law degree, or any education in law or even to have read a law book. I wonder in our history if....
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It was a pale reflection of the old Article II. On seeing this language, Rep. Thomas Tudor Tucker of South Carolina rose to amend the amendment by inserting the word expressly before the word delegated.
According to the record, Madison objected that"“...it was impossible to confine a government to the exercise of express powers; there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication, unless the constitution descended to recount every minutiae.”
Jefferson was upset over Marbury; he believed another way could be found to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, perhaps the states and so on. But Jefferson was also a little relieved the Judicial Act of 1789 was declared unconstitutional because Marbury and 16 other Adams midnight judges would not get their jobs. In that he was a victor. Marbury went on to be a success in banking. Later, Jefferson will be concerned that his purchase of Louisiana would be declared unconstitutional, but it was not.Certainly Jefferson disbelieved before he believed powers were inferred
Bill of Rights Institute Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase
Jefferson was upset over Marbury; he believed another way could be found to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, perhaps the states and so on. But Jefferson was also a little relieved the Judicial Act of 1789 was declared unconstitutional because Marbury and 16 other Adams midnight judges would not get their jobs. In that he was a victor. Marbury went on to be a success in banking. Later, Jefferson will be concerned that his purchase of Louisiana would be declared unconstitutional, but it was not.Certainly Jefferson disbelieved before he believed powers were inferred
Bill of Rights Institute Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase
The Framers didn't omit from the Constitution the authority of judicial review, it's clearly stated in Article VI.Add to the framers omission of stating in the Constitution the power of the Court to declare a law unconstitutional they also didn't require a member of the Supreme Court or most courts to have a law degree, or any education in law or even to have read a law book. I wonder in our history if....
In the early days law was taught in the law offices. Lincoln had only a limited education.Add to the framers omission of stating in the Constitution the power of the Court to declare a law unconstitutional they also didn't require a member of the Supreme Court or most courts to have a law degree, or any education in law or even to have read a law book. I wonder in our history if....
Do you believe Judges should always have had a law degree? Do you not believe some things can be inferred in the Constitution?
really? Article 1 Section 8 Clause 18 James Madison to Spencer RoaneAll 3 branches are co-equal in consideration of Constitutional questions. That was the intent of the framers.
The Court was never intended to have a final say over what is or is not Constitutional.
Correct....
What John Marshall stated in the opinion produced an "extra-Constitutional usurpation of power by the judiciary". By declaring a law passed by Congress and signed by the President as being in violation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court gaves itself the ability to do something that the Constitution does not.
...
Was Judicial review widely criticized at the time of Marbury?
btw hardly as radical as you'd have people believe: "Judicial review had become increasingly accepted in the fifteen years since the ratification of the Constitution, its status before Marbury was still uncertain and the unanimous decision was hardly a foregone conclusion. Today Judicial review is the foundation of the Supreme Court's power." - Jeffery Rosen - The Supreme Court/Personalities page 31
and also: Judicial Review Before Marbury - Volume 58 Issue 2 - November 2005 - Stanford Law Review : read it and weep : "this Article shows that it was far more common than previously recognized: there are more than six times as many cases from the early Republic as the leading historical account found."
If that's true that information should be sent on to law schools all over the nation because they are teaching Marbury.The Framers didn't omit from the Constitution the authority of judicial review, it's clearly stated in Article VI.Add to the framers omission of stating in the Constitution the power of the Court to declare a law unconstitutional they also didn't require a member of the Supreme Court or most courts to have a law degree, or any education in law or even to have read a law book. I wonder in our history if....
The Framers didn't omit from the Constitution the authority of judicial review, it's clearly stated in Article VI.Add to the framers omission of stating in the Constitution the power of the Court to declare a law unconstitutional they also didn't require a member of the Supreme Court or most courts to have a law degree, or any education in law or even to have read a law book. I wonder in our history if....
cute
In my not-so-humble opinion, Elected Judges are the worst evil -In the early days law was taught in the law offices. Lincoln had only a limited education.Add to the framers omission of stating in the Constitution the power of the Court to declare a law unconstitutional they also didn't require a member of the Supreme Court or most courts to have a law degree, or any education in law or even to have read a law book. I wonder in our history if....
Do you believe Judges should always have had a law degree? Do you not believe some things can be inferred in the Constitution?
But much of law is not about the Constitution and for lawyers to argue cases before political appointee judges might make a mess of our whole legal system.
really? Article 1 Section 8 Clause 18 James Madison to Spencer RoaneAll 3 branches are co-equal in consideration of Constitutional questions. That was the intent of the framers.
The Court was never intended to have a final say over what is or is not Constitutional.
They all are co-equal. As a matter of fact all three get to say what is and isn't constitutional, but the court gets the final say in cases where ...
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Article Three of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1472&context=wmlr
Point to the precise, specific language.
Because Marbury is recognition, not creation:If that's true that information should be sent on to law schools all over the nation because they are teaching Marbury.The Framers didn't omit from the Constitution the authority of judicial review, it's clearly stated in Article VI.Add to the framers omission of stating in the Constitution the power of the Court to declare a law unconstitutional they also didn't require a member of the Supreme Court or most courts to have a law degree, or any education in law or even to have read a law book. I wonder in our history if....
