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.
Where do you get your viewpoints of things? Have you read any of the previous post in this thread?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
Show me exactly where in that language the Federal Courts are given the power to nullify existing law.Point to the precise, specific language.
Thank you.
WelfareQueen...
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."
Where do you get your viewpoints of things? Have you read any of the previous post in this thread?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
Show me exactly where in that language the Federal Courts are given the power to nullify existing law.
Thank you.
Do you believe in implied powers? Do you know what originalism is, textualism is, strict constructionism is?
You and your 'buddy' are both equally wrong.Where do you get your viewpoints of things? Have you read any of the previous post in this thread?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
Show me exactly where in that language the Federal Courts are given the power to nullify existing law.
Thank you.
Do you believe in implied powers? Do you know what originalism is, textualism is, strict constructionism is?
Many of the key arguments in this thread are mine. Read from the beginning.
A buddy of mine is a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Florida. He agrees with me. The Court gave itself the power of Judicial Review in Marbury v Madison. The powers are not Constitutionally derived (i.e. they may be considered Unconstitutional).
Article III is clear the Supreme Court holds final authority in ANY case involving a dispute between a State or States and the Federal Government as well as in any case between a citizen of the several States and the Federal Government. That means they do in fact have the authority as granted by the Constitution to declare laws unconstitutional.Where do you get your viewpoints of things? Have you read any of the previous post in this thread?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
Show me exactly where in that language the Federal Courts are given the power to nullify existing law.
Thank you.
Do you believe in implied powers? Do you know what originalism is, textualism is, strict constructionism is?
Many of the key arguments in this thread are mine. Read from the beginning.
A buddy of mine is a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Florida. He agrees with me. The Court gave itself the power of Judicial Review in Marbury v Madison. The powers are not Constitutionally derived (i.e. they may be considered Unconstitutional).
WelfareQueen...
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."
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."
Judicial review was practiced by Colonial courts well before the advent of the Foundation Era, where Americans of the new Nation fully expected the courts to continue to review laws and invalidate those offensive to the Constitution.
Marbury acknowledged this doctrine.
Why do you Liberals say something is clearly stated when it's not? Clear would be direct words not your lame interpretation of those words.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....
I'm a liberal and learned of Marbury years ago. The interesting thing is the different approaches members of the Court use to interpret the Constitution today. Some want it in black and white, and the irony is, the framers did not put the power of the Court to interpret in black and white. Maybe it's not a liberal or conservative issue but just history.Why do you Liberals say something is clearly stated when it's not? Clear would be direct words not your lame interpretation of those words.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....
Article III is clear the Supreme Court holds final authority in ANY case involving a dispute between a State or States and the Federal Government as well as in any case between a citizen of the several States and the Federal Government. That means they do in fact have the authority as granted by the Constitution to declare laws unconstitutional.Where do you get your viewpoints of things? Have you read any of the previous post in this thread?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
Show me exactly where in that language the Federal Courts are given the power to nullify existing law.
Thank you.
Do you believe in implied powers? Do you know what originalism is, textualism is, strict constructionism is?
Many of the key arguments in this thread are mine. Read from the beginning.
A buddy of mine is a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Florida. He agrees with me. The Court gave itself the power of Judicial Review in Marbury v Madison. The powers are not Constitutionally derived (i.e. they may be considered Unconstitutional).
I'm a liberal and learned of Marbury years ago. The interesting thing is the different approaches members of the Court use to interpret the Constitution today. Some want it in black and white, and the irony is, the framers did not put the power of the Court to interpret in black and white. Maybe it's not a liberal or conservative issue but just history.Why do you Liberals say something is clearly stated when it's not? Clear would be direct words not your lame interpretation of those words.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....
Where do you get your viewpoints of things? Have you read any of the previous post in this thread?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
Show me exactly where in that language the Federal Courts are given the power to nullify existing law.
Thank you.
Do you believe in implied powers? Do you know what originalism is, textualism is, strict constructionism is?
Many of the key arguments in this thread are mine. Read from the beginning.
A buddy of mine is a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Florida. He agrees with me. The Court gave itself the power of Judicial Review in Marbury v Madison. The powers are not Constitutionally derived (i.e. they may be considered Unconstitutional).
irrelevant for the purposes of what we are debating, unless of course you have another point to make. If so, make it. If not, irrelevantWelfareQueen...
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."
What level of court?
WelfareQueenWhere do you get your viewpoints of things? Have you read any of the previous post in this thread?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
Show me exactly where in that language the Federal Courts are given the power to nullify existing law.
Thank you.
Do you believe in implied powers? Do you know what originalism is, textualism is, strict constructionism is?
Many of the key arguments in this thread are mine. Read from the beginning.
A buddy of mine is a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Florida. He agrees with me. The Court gave itself the power of Judicial Review in Marbury v Madison. The powers are not Constitutionally derived (i.e. they may be considered Unconstitutional).
Well your friend is but one voice. an educated one, but one. Thank him. Ask your friend this: Is it more appropriate to say 'solidified' than 'gave itself'? I'd am seriously interested in his response.
Constitutionally derived? Hmm... cute use of phrase. Of course many powers that consensus says are there may be considered unconstitutional -- but who gets to decide that?
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."
Judicial review was practiced by Colonial courts well before the advent of the Foundation Era, where Americans of the new Nation fully expected the courts to continue to review laws and invalidate those offensive to the Constitution.
Marbury acknowledged this doctrine.
Marburg established the doctrine under the Constitution. To say the new nation fully expected it means you must prove it.
Not true. I could think of at least a hundred ways to say something in ways that the meaning is direct, but the words may seem not so. It is how the English language works. It confuses immigrants and others. Which are you -- immigrant or other?Why do you Liberals say something is clearly stated when it's not? Clear would be direct words not your lame interpretation of those words.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....
Cannot? It has been since day one.Article III is clear the Supreme Court holds final authority in ANY case involving a dispute between a State or States and the Federal Government as well as in any case between a citizen of the several States and the Federal Government. That means they do in fact have the authority as granted by the Constitution to declare laws unconstitutional.Where do you get your viewpoints of things? Have you read any of the previous post in this thread?really? Article 1 Section 8 Clause 18 James Madison to Spencer Roane
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
Show me exactly where in that language the Federal Courts are given the power to nullify existing law.
Thank you.
Do you believe in implied powers? Do you know what originalism is, textualism is, strict constructionism is?
Many of the key arguments in this thread are mine. Read from the beginning.
A buddy of mine is a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Florida. He agrees with me. The Court gave itself the power of Judicial Review in Marbury v Madison. The powers are not Constitutionally derived (i.e. they may be considered Unconstitutional).
The Court can declare whatever it wants. The question is Judicial Nullification. The Court does not have the power to nullify existing law by declaring it unconstitutional.
Only the Congress can create, amendment, or nullify law per the Constitution. That point cannot be argued.
I'm a liberal and learned of Marbury years ago. The interesting thing is the different approaches members of the Court use to interpret the Constitution today. Some want it in black and white, and the irony is, the framers did not put the power of the Court to interpret in black and white. Maybe it's not a liberal or conservative issue but just history.Why do you Liberals say something is clearly stated when it's not? Clear would be direct words not your lame interpretation of those words.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....
Conservative65irrelevant for the purposes of what we are debating, unless of course you have another point to make. If so, make it. If not, irrelevantWelfareQueen...
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."
What level of court?
Not true. I could think of at least a hundred ways to say something in ways that the meaning is direct, but the words may seem not so. It is how the English language works. It confuses immigrants and others. Which are you -- immigrant or other?Why do you Liberals say something is clearly stated when it's not? Clear would be direct words not your lame interpretation of those words.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....
