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.
You're a moron. Violating the Supremacy Clause is what makes a state law unconstitutional.
Ware v Hylton.
Oh and btw, that's 1796. Proving also that judicial review by the Supreme Court predated Marbury for all you muppets claiming otherwise.
Let me get this straight, a decision that held that a law made pursuant to a treaty ratified by Congress proved that state laws that violate the constitution are unconstitutional?
Gotta love that logic. Why don't you show me exactly where it says that in the opinion.
Ware v. Hylton - 3 U.S. 199 (1796) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
You obviously don't know what the point of the conversation was, because now you're talking in circles.
Let's start over:
Is the Supremacy Clause meant to be enforceable?
If your answer is 'no', then why not, and, why then is it there if it's not enforceable?
If your answer is 'yes', then what is supposed to be the mechanism for enforcement?
Clearly theres no need to replace judicial review; indeed, to do so would be disastrous.How to replace Judial Review
The notion is either the product of ignorance or madness.
There is, however, a way to decrease the instances of judicial review, and that could be accomplished by lawmakers obeying the Constitution and its case law where they stop enacting measures they know full-well to be un-Constitutional.
In short: lawmakers need to stop playing politics with the Constitution and the courts.
How to replace Judial Review
2/3 2/3 3/4
The left get 5/9, everyone else gets 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. Got it.
One thing this thread has laid bare though is the pathetic liberal lie that you all believe the court is somehow conservative. Now that you have the 5/9 system of changing the Constitution, you are all fighting like the devil to keep it. You obviously know it's working completely in your favor.
Nope, you and QWB and the other reactionaries who try to rewrite history simply are exposed as not knowing the Constitution or the Founders, or the history of both, and the development of constitutional law since then.
You are what you are: wrong.
When the majority interferes with a minority's civil rights, no law suit is frivolous.
Tell you what, when you decide to stop arguing with someone else, and address the deficiencies in your education, get back to me. Alternatively, feel free to show me where I said what you think I said. That won't be possible, but looking for a non existent post might teach you not to argue with people who didn't say what you made up.
Read up, honeybuns.Tell you what, when you decide to stop arguing with someone else, and address the deficiencies in your education, get back to me. Alternatively, feel free to show me where I said what you think I said. That won't be possible, but looking for a non existent post might teach you not to argue with people who didn't say what you made up.
She's right that Ware v. Hylton was a case of Judicial Review before Marbury v. Madison.
To my op, it's still a red herring. It only goes to the side discussion of whether the Supreme Court ever did Judicial Review before Marbury v. Madison or not.
What it does not do is support in any way the court has Judicial Review based on anything except their own declaration that they do, it's still the court taking it upon itself to declare itself keeper and manipulator of the Constitution.
And that is a red herring in the end to the op as well since I'm proposing to codify that the States are the ones who should keep the Federal government in check and not the Courts.
The courts are the judiciary, they are to "interpret" the laws passed by the legislature in the cases brought by the executive branch who "enforce" the laws. That somehow inherent in that is that the judiciary then get to judge the laws is preposterous. And in the end, the liberals don't even believe that or care. They just care that it's working for them.
Tell you what, when you decide to stop arguing with someone else, and address the deficiencies in your education, get back to me. Alternatively, feel free to show me where I said what you think I said. That won't be possible, but looking for a non existent post might teach you not to argue with people who didn't say what you made up.
She's right that Ware v. Hylton was a case of Judicial Review before Marbury v. Madison.
To my op, it's still a red herring. It only goes to the side discussion of whether the Supreme Court ever did Judicial Review before Marbury v. Madison or not.
What it does not do is support in any way the court has Judicial Review based on anything except their own declaration that they do, it's still the court taking it upon itself to declare itself keeper and manipulator of the Constitution.
And that is a red herring in the end to the op as well since I'm proposing to codify that the States are the ones who should keep the Federal government in check and not the Courts.
The courts are the judiciary, they are to "interpret" the laws passed by the legislature in the cases brought by the executive branch who "enforce" the laws. That somehow inherent in that is that the judiciary then get to judge the laws is preposterous. And in the end, the liberals don't even believe that or care. They just care that it's working for them.
Read up, honeybuns.Tell you what, when you decide to stop arguing with someone else, and address the deficiencies in your education, get back to me. Alternatively, feel free to show me where I said what you think I said. That won't be possible, but looking for a non existent post might teach you not to argue with people who didn't say what you made up.
She's right that Ware v. Hylton was a case of Judicial Review before Marbury v. Madison.
To my op, it's still a red herring. It only goes to the side discussion of whether the Supreme Court ever did Judicial Review before Marbury v. Madison or not.
What it does not do is support in any way the court has Judicial Review based on anything except their own declaration that they do, it's still the court taking it upon itself to declare itself keeper and manipulator of the Constitution.
And that is a red herring in the end to the op as well since I'm proposing to codify that the States are the ones who should keep the Federal government in check and not the Courts.
The courts are the judiciary, they are to "interpret" the laws passed by the legislature in the cases brought by the executive branch who "enforce" the laws. That somehow inherent in that is that the judiciary then get to judge the laws is preposterous. And in the end, the liberals don't even believe that or care. They just care that it's working for them.
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.
Read up, honeybuns.She's right that Ware v. Hylton was a case of Judicial Review before Marbury v. Madison.
To my op, it's still a red herring. It only goes to the side discussion of whether the Supreme Court ever did Judicial Review before Marbury v. Madison or not.
What it does not do is support in any way the court has Judicial Review based on anything except their own declaration that they do, it's still the court taking it upon itself to declare itself keeper and manipulator of the Constitution.
And that is a red herring in the end to the op as well since I'm proposing to codify that the States are the ones who should keep the Federal government in check and not the Courts.
The courts are the judiciary, they are to "interpret" the laws passed by the legislature in the cases brought by the executive branch who "enforce" the laws. That somehow inherent in that is that the judiciary then get to judge the laws is preposterous. And in the end, the liberals don't even believe that or care. They just care that it's working for them.
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, its 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.
^ Stupid post is stupid.
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, its 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.
Still not in the Constitution. If not in the Constitution, the power does not exist.
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, its 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.
Still not in the Constitution. If not in the Constitution, the power does not exist.
Tell you what, when you decide to stop arguing with someone else, and address the deficiencies in your education, get back to me. Alternatively, feel free to show me where I said what you think I said. That won't be possible, but looking for a non existent post might teach you not to argue with people who didn't say what you made up.
She's right that Ware v. Hylton was a case of Judicial Review before Marbury v. Madison.
To my op, it's still a red herring. It only goes to the side discussion of whether the Supreme Court ever did Judicial Review before Marbury v. Madison or not.
.
[To my op, it's still a red herring. It only goes to the side discussion of whether the Supreme Court ever did Judicial Review before Marbury v. Madison or not.
.
Let me get this straight, a decision that held that a law made pursuant to a treaty ratified by Congress proved that state laws that violate the constitution are unconstitutional?
Gotta love that logic. Why don't you show me exactly where it says that in the opinion.
Ware v. Hylton - 3 U.S. 199 (1796) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
You obviously don't know what the point of the conversation was, because now you're talking in circles.
Let's start over:
Is the Supremacy Clause meant to be enforceable?
If your answer is 'no', then why not, and, why then is it there if it's not enforceable?
If your answer is 'yes', then what is supposed to be the mechanism for enforcement?
Tell you what, when you decide to stop arguing with someone else, and address the deficiencies in your education, get back to me. Alternatively, feel free to show me where I said what you think I said. That won't be possible, but looking for a non existent post might teach you not to argue with people who didn't say what you made up.
Kaz, your opinion does not count.
SCOTUS's opinion, however, does.
Read up, honeybuns.Tell you what, when you decide to stop arguing with someone else, and address the deficiencies in your education, get back to me. Alternatively, feel free to show me where I said what you think I said. That won't be possible, but looking for a non existent post might teach you not to argue with people who didn't say what you made up.
She's right that Ware v. Hylton was a case of Judicial Review before Marbury v. Madison.
To my op, it's still a red herring. It only goes to the side discussion of whether the Supreme Court ever did Judicial Review before Marbury v. Madison or not.
What it does not do is support in any way the court has Judicial Review based on anything except their own declaration that they do, it's still the court taking it upon itself to declare itself keeper and manipulator of the Constitution.
And that is a red herring in the end to the op as well since I'm proposing to codify that the States are the ones who should keep the Federal government in check and not the Courts.
The courts are the judiciary, they are to "interpret" the laws passed by the legislature in the cases brought by the executive branch who "enforce" the laws. That somehow inherent in that is that the judiciary then get to judge the laws is preposterous. And in the end, the liberals don't even believe that or care. They just care that it's working for them.
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2040&context=facpub
Tell you what, when you decide to stop arguing with someone else, and address the deficiencies in your education, get back to me. Alternatively, feel free to show me where I said what you think I said. That won't be possible, but looking for a non existent post might teach you not to argue with people who didn't say what you made up.
She's right that Ware v. Hylton was a case of Judicial Review before Marbury v. Madison.
To my op, it's still a red herring. It only goes to the side discussion of whether the Supreme Court ever did Judicial Review before Marbury v. Madison or not.
What it does not do is support in any way the court has Judicial Review based on anything except their own declaration that they do, it's still the court taking it upon itself to declare itself keeper and manipulator of the Constitution.
And that is a red herring in the end to the op as well since I'm proposing to codify that the States are the ones who should keep the Federal government in check and not the Courts.
The courts are the judiciary, they are to "interpret" the laws passed by the legislature in the cases brought by the executive branch who "enforce" the laws. That somehow inherent in that is that the judiciary then get to judge the laws is preposterous. And in the end, the liberals don't even believe that or care. They just care that it's working for them.
You still have the same problem that your OP did, you aren't even wrong.
I answered this question in the op.How, exactly, would you deal with a facially unconstitutional law if the courts did not have the power of judicial review? If you take that power away from the courts, how would you deal with a law that made it legal for police to kill people who forget to use their turn signals? If you want an example of what happens when courts cannot review laws, and can only do what the government says, take any tyranny from history and examine how the courts work.
