Conservative65
Gold Member
- Oct 14, 2014
- 26,127
- 2,208
- 265
- Banned
- #141
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.
Sounds to me as if you want consitutional determination by consensus. Consensus is the absence of leadership. Doing it by consensus means when it goes wrong, no one is to blame.