Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Dude...be a big enough man to admit when you're wrong. Everything I posted there - directly from the U.S. Constitution - makes it exceedingly clear that the Supreme Court was explicitly created to review challenged law. Congress makes law. You look silly right now denying something so crystal clear. Let's review again:The Constitution does not make it clear that the Supreme Court has the power of Judicial Review which is why the Marshall Court had to have a trial in which the Court could declare that it has the power. Your quote on Article 3 says nothing about judicial review.What a bizarre twist on reality. Marbury vs. Madison is 100% in line with the U.S. Constitution. I'm going to repeat what was posted above since you seem confused...So where is it written that the Supreme Court will review laws and acts and decide their Constitutionality?ARTICLE III
Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2. 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.”
Excerpt From: States, United. “The United States Constitution.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The United States Constitution
You might check out Marbury v Madison, when the Court took the power unto themselves. I think every high school kid is supposed to learn this.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States
Does Congress not make laws? Does the Constitution not make it clear that judicial power exists to all cases, in law and equity, the laws of the United States?!? What part are you confused by here. You're trying to proclaim that something which reaffirms my position somehow proves your position. Bizarre.
The framers may have intended Judicial Review or may not have, in any case the Constitution does not give the Court that power.
Dude...be a big enough man to admit when you're wrong. Everything I posted there - directly from the U.S. Constitution - makes it exceedingly clear that the Supreme Court was explicitly created to review challenged law. Congress makes law. You look silly right now denying something so crystal clear. Let's review again:The Constitution does not make it clear that the Supreme Court has the power of Judicial Review which is why the Marshall Court had to have a trial in which the Court could declare that it has the power. Your quote on Article 3 says nothing about judicial review.What a bizarre twist on reality. Marbury vs. Madison is 100% in line with the U.S. Constitution. I'm going to repeat what was posted above since you seem confused...So where is it written that the Supreme Court will review laws and acts and decide their Constitutionality?ARTICLE III
Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2. 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.”
Excerpt From: States, United. “The United States Constitution.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The United States Constitution
You might check out Marbury v Madison, when the Court took the power unto themselves. I think every high school kid is supposed to learn this.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States
Does Congress not make laws? Does the Constitution not make it clear that judicial power exists to all cases, in law and equity, the laws of the United States?!? What part are you confused by here. You're trying to proclaim that something which reaffirms my position somehow proves your position. Bizarre.
The framers may have intended Judicial Review or may not have, in any case the Constitution does not give the Court that power.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States
There is nothing to "research". It's right there in black and white and indisputable. You got hammered on this one. It's undeniable. Be a big enough man to admit when you're wrong.Dude...be a big enough man to admit when you're wrong. Everything I posted there - directly from the U.S. Constitution - makes it exceedingly clear that the Supreme Court was explicitly created to review challenged law. Congress makes law. You look silly right now denying something so crystal clear. Let's review again:The Constitution does not make it clear that the Supreme Court has the power of Judicial Review which is why the Marshall Court had to have a trial in which the Court could declare that it has the power. Your quote on Article 3 says nothing about judicial review.What a bizarre twist on reality. Marbury vs. Madison is 100% in line with the U.S. Constitution. I'm going to repeat what was posted above since you seem confused...ARTICLE III
Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2. 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.”
Excerpt From: States, United. “The United States Constitution.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The United States Constitution
You might check out Marbury v Madison, when the Court took the power unto themselves. I think every high school kid is supposed to learn this.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States
Does Congress not make laws? Does the Constitution not make it clear that judicial power exists to all cases, in law and equity, the laws of the United States?!? What part are you confused by here. You're trying to proclaim that something which reaffirms my position somehow proves your position. Bizarre.
The framers may have intended Judicial Review or may not have, in any case the Constitution does not give the Court that power.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States
As l and others have told you nothing in Article 3 says anything about Judicial Review or gives that power to the Court so I will drop it. You should have researched the premise.
Nothing more can I do for you except to advise you to get some law books, or books on the Constitution and look up Judicial Review. I have four in front of me as I write. It was a simple omission.There is nothing to "research". It's right there in black and white and indisputable. You got hammered on this one. It's undeniable. Be a big enough man to admit when you're wrong.Dude...be a big enough man to admit when you're wrong. Everything I posted there - directly from the U.S. Constitution - makes it exceedingly clear that the Supreme Court was explicitly created to review challenged law. Congress makes law. You look silly right now denying something so crystal clear. Let's review again:The Constitution does not make it clear that the Supreme Court has the power of Judicial Review which is why the Marshall Court had to have a trial in which the Court could declare that it has the power. Your quote on Article 3 says nothing about judicial review.What a bizarre twist on reality. Marbury vs. Madison is 100% in line with the U.S. Constitution. I'm going to repeat what was posted above since you seem confused...You might check out Marbury v Madison, when the Court took the power unto themselves. I think every high school kid is supposed to learn this.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States
Does Congress not make laws? Does the Constitution not make it clear that judicial power exists to all cases, in law and equity, the laws of the United States?!? What part are you confused by here. You're trying to proclaim that something which reaffirms my position somehow proves your position. Bizarre.
The framers may have intended Judicial Review or may not have, in any case the Constitution does not give the Court that power.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States
As l and others have told you nothing in Article 3 says anything about Judicial Review or gives that power to the Court so I will drop it. You should have researched the premise.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States
Trying to deny that is literally dumber than trying to deny that water is wet.
Well I have the Constitution itself in front of me and quoted it word-for-word for you. Anyone who has basic literacy can clearly see that the Constitution created the Supreme Court and then empowered them with judicial power of all cases in law.Nothing more can I do for you except to advise you to get some law books, or books on the Constitution and look up Judicial Review. I have four in front of me as I write. It was a simple omission.There is nothing to "research". It's right there in black and white and indisputable. You got hammered on this one. It's undeniable. Be a big enough man to admit when you're wrong.Dude...be a big enough man to admit when you're wrong. Everything I posted there - directly from the U.S. Constitution - makes it exceedingly clear that the Supreme Court was explicitly created to review challenged law. Congress makes law. You look silly right now denying something so crystal clear. Let's review again:The Constitution does not make it clear that the Supreme Court has the power of Judicial Review which is why the Marshall Court had to have a trial in which the Court could declare that it has the power. Your quote on Article 3 says nothing about judicial review.What a bizarre twist on reality. Marbury vs. Madison is 100% in line with the U.S. Constitution. I'm going to repeat what was posted above since you seem confused...
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States
Does Congress not make laws? Does the Constitution not make it clear that judicial power exists to all cases, in law and equity, the laws of the United States?!? What part are you confused by here. You're trying to proclaim that something which reaffirms my position somehow proves your position. Bizarre.
The framers may have intended Judicial Review or may not have, in any case the Constitution does not give the Court that power.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States
As l and others have told you nothing in Article 3 says anything about Judicial Review or gives that power to the Court so I will drop it. You should have researched the premise.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States
Trying to deny that is literally dumber than trying to deny that water is wet.
Are you now saying the framers and Marshall also gave you the power of Judicial Review?Well I have the Constitution itself in front of me and quoted it word-for-word for you. Anyone who has basic literacy can clearly see that the Constitution created the Supreme Court and then empowered them with judicial power of all cases in law.Nothing more can I do for you except to advise you to get some law books, or books on the Constitution and look up Judicial Review. I have four in front of me as I write. It was a simple omission.There is nothing to "research". It's right there in black and white and indisputable. You got hammered on this one. It's undeniable. Be a big enough man to admit when you're wrong.Dude...be a big enough man to admit when you're wrong. Everything I posted there - directly from the U.S. Constitution - makes it exceedingly clear that the Supreme Court was explicitly created to review challenged law. Congress makes law. You look silly right now denying something so crystal clear. Let's review again:The Constitution does not make it clear that the Supreme Court has the power of Judicial Review which is why the Marshall Court had to have a trial in which the Court could declare that it has the power. Your quote on Article 3 says nothing about judicial review.
The framers may have intended Judicial Review or may not have, in any case the Constitution does not give the Court that power.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States
As l and others have told you nothing in Article 3 says anything about Judicial Review or gives that power to the Court so I will drop it. You should have researched the premise.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States
Trying to deny that is literally dumber than trying to deny that water is wet.
Liberal "logic" at it's finest. I quote the Constitution itself word-for-word and regent's response is to essentiall declare that it doesn't count and one should (and I quote) "get some [progessive] books on the Constitution".Are you now saying the framers and Marshall also gave you the power of Judicial Review?
All I can do is tell you to get some books on the Constitution regarding Judicial Review. No need to thank me or anything else, it will be our little secret.
Because the words you read do not give the Court the power for judicial review. The power came from a Court decision in Marbury v, Madison.Liberal "logic" at it's finest. I quote the Constitution itself word-for-word and regent's response is to essentiall declare that it doesn't count and one should (and I quote) "get some [progessive] books on the Constitution".Are you now saying the framers and Marshall also gave you the power of Judicial Review?
All I can do is tell you to get some books on the Constitution regarding Judicial Review. No need to thank me or anything else, it will be our little secret.
Folks...you can't make this stuff up
(Psst....my friend....? Why would I get progressive propaganda about the U.S. Constitution when I can just read the constitution itself?!?)
The words are crystal clear - perhaps the issue is you don't know what some of these terms mean?Because the words you read do not give the Court the power for judicial review. The power came from a Court decision in Marbury v, Madison.Liberal "logic" at it's finest. I quote the Constitution itself word-for-word and regent's response is to essentiall declare that it doesn't count and one should (and I quote) "get some [progessive] books on the Constitution".Are you now saying the framers and Marshall also gave you the power of Judicial Review?
All I can do is tell you to get some books on the Constitution regarding Judicial Review. No need to thank me or anything else, it will be our little secret.
Folks...you can't make this stuff up
(Psst....my friend....? Why would I get progressive propaganda about the U.S. Constitution when I can just read the constitution itself?!?)
And as Cooke says about judicial reviews in his book "A Detailed Analysis Of the Constitution" there is no specific clause in the Constitution that confers this power on the courts,The words are crystal clear - perhaps the issue is you don't know what some of these terms mean?Because the words you read do not give the Court the power for judicial review. The power came from a Court decision in Marbury v, Madison.Liberal "logic" at it's finest. I quote the Constitution itself word-for-word and regent's response is to essentiall declare that it doesn't count and one should (and I quote) "get some [progessive] books on the Constitution".Are you now saying the framers and Marshall also gave you the power of Judicial Review?
All I can do is tell you to get some books on the Constitution regarding Judicial Review. No need to thank me or anything else, it will be our little secret.
Folks...you can't make this stuff up
(Psst....my friend....? Why would I get progressive propaganda about the U.S. Constitution when I can just read the constitution itself?!?)
The U.S. Constitution unequivocally establishes the Supreme Court and tasks them with (and I quote) “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States”.
And as the U.S. Constitution itself says: (and I quote) “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States”.And as Cooke says about judicial reviews in his book "A Detailed Analysis Of the Constitution" there is no specific clause in the Constitution that confers this power on the courts,The words are crystal clear - perhaps the issue is you don't know what some of these terms mean?
The U.S. Constitution unequivocally establishes the Supreme Court and tasks them with (and I quote) “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States”.
And as the U.S. Constitution itself says: (and I quote) “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States”.And as Cooke says about judicial reviews in his book "A Detailed Analysis Of the Constitution" there is no specific clause in the Constitution that confers this power on the courts,The words are crystal clear - perhaps the issue is you don't know what some of these terms mean?
The U.S. Constitution unequivocally establishes the Supreme Court and tasks them with (and I quote) “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States”.
Only a small child confused by the language or a liar could possibly deny that the Constitution clearly grants the Supreme Court judicial power in all cases in law. Congress creates law. Thus, their legislation is absolutely and undeniably subject to challenges in the Supreme Court.
You're simply not a big enough man to admit when you're wrong. Oh well...
The second book I pulled off the shelf, "Your Rugged Constitution by Bruce Findlay says this: "The Constitution does not say plainly that the Supreme Court shall have this great power (judicial review) yet it has been used by the Court for over 100 years."And as the U.S. Constitution itself says: (and I quote) “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States”.And as Cooke says about judicial reviews in his book "A Detailed Analysis Of the Constitution" there is no specific clause in the Constitution that confers this power on the courts,The words are crystal clear - perhaps the issue is you don't know what some of these terms mean?
The U.S. Constitution unequivocally establishes the Supreme Court and tasks them with (and I quote) “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States”.
Only a small child confused by the language or a liar could possibly deny that the Constitution clearly grants the Supreme Court judicial power in all cases in law. Congress creates law. Thus, their legislation is absolutely and undeniably subject to challenges in the Supreme Court.
You're simply not a big enough man to admit when you're wrong. Oh well...
And why would you go to books about the U.S. Constitution when you can just go to the U.S. Constitution itself. This is as stupid as teammates forming opinions about Michael Jordan based off of books they read about him when they could just go actually talk to Michael Jordan himself. Seriously...who does that?!?The second book I pulled off the shelf, "Your Rugged Constitution by Bruce Findlay says this: "The Constitution does not say plainly that the Supreme Court shall have this great power (judicial review) yet it has been used by the Court for over 100 years."
How many law books would convince you?
