Marbury v. Madison: a good litmus test for S.C. court nominees

[Agorism]

Should opposition to the decision in Marbury v. Madison be a litmus test for conservative judicial appointments?

Thomas Jefferson famously opposed the decision in Marbury v. Madison.




"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

[ChaosControl]

Yes.

[Deborah K]

No one ever talks about the fact that Congress has the power to pass a new or revised law that "changes" or "reverses" the meaning or scope of the law as interpreted by the Court, and the legislative history of the new law usually states that it was intended to "overrule" a specific Court decision.

[Galileo Galilei]

Should opposition to the decision in Marbury v. Madison be a litmus test for conservative judicial appointments?

Thomas Jefferson famously opposed the decision in Marbury v. Madison.

Jefferson & Madison won the case. You are confused. Marbury vs. Madison set a precedent that congress, nor any other branch of government, cannot delegate its power to any other entity.

That was the essence fo the ruling, and no, Jefferson did not oppose this.

No, I don't want judges who rubber stamp the War Powers Act or "laws" written by Administrative agencies, I want judges who follow the precedent of our Founding Fathers.

"All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void".

John Marshall (1803)

[Agorism]

wrong.

Jefferson strongly opposed the S.C. granting itself the right to judicial review in Marbury v. Madison (http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1030.htm)


"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451

"But, you may ask, if the two departments [i.e., federal and state] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:47

Judicial Despotism


"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114


Each Department is Independent



"My construction of the Constitution is... that each department is truly independent of the others and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially where it is to act ultimately and without appeal." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:214

"That branch which is to act ultimately and without appeal on any law, is the rightful expositor of the validity of the law, uncontrolled by the opinions of the other co-ordinate authorities." --Thomas Jefferson to S. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:304

"Nothing in the Constitution has given [the judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistrates are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME ll:50

"The federal judges... cannot issue a mandamus to the President or legislature, or to any of their officers, the Constitution controlling the common law in this particular." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:214

"Each of the three departments has equally the right to decide for itself what is its duty under the Constitution without regard to what the others may have decided for themselves under a similar question." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:215

"The judges certainly have more frequent occasion to act on constitutional questions, because the laws of meum and tuum and of criminal action, forming the great mass of the system of law, constitute their particular department. When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough... The people themselves,... [with] their discretion [informed] by education, [are] the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278


Youtube on Judicial review
YouTube - Marbury vs Madison (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DQ_K94vflM&feature=related)

[Galileo Galilei]

wrong.

Jefferson strongly opposed the S.C. granting itself the right to judicial review in Marbury v. Madison (http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1030.htm)



Judicial Despotism




Each Department is Independent




Youtube on Judicial review
YouTube - Govt Project: Marbury v. Madison (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu-vWVntHyc)

"Judicial review" already existed before Marbury vs. Madison. In facts, all branches of government get to review the law. This includes states and juries as well. You are making an argument for big government if you oppose Marbury.

For example, the presidential veto is the same thing as judicial review, except that a presidential veto is more authoritative than if done by the Supreme Court.

[Agorism]

"Judicial review" already existed before Marbury vs. Madison. In facts, all branches of government get to review the law. This includes states and juries as well. You are making an argument for big government if you oppose Marbury.

For example, the presidential veto is the same thing as judicial review, except that a presidential veto is more authoritative than if done by the Supreme Court.



Jefferson wrote extensively about his opposition to the outcome of the case.

Let me google that for you before you talk. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=marbury+vs+madison)

You will note Jefferson's opposition.

[Galileo Galilei]

Jefferson wrote extensively about his opposition to the outcome of the case.

Let me google that for you before you talk. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=marbury+vs+madison)

You will note Jefferson's opposition.

Jefferson wasn't even at the Constitutional Convention. Nor was he at the Ratifying Convention. Jefferson had personal issues with Marshall. Show me were Jefferson opposes the essential ruling in Marbury, the unconstitutionaluity of transferring powers.

James Madison is a better guide for the Constitution.

[Agorism]

Yes, Jefferson opposed the Philidelphia convention conspirators as an "assembly of demigods."

He did, however, author the Declaration of independence, a much more anti-government document, which stated that British law did not apply here.


Jefferson wasn't even at the Constitutional Convention. Nor was he at the Ratifying Convention. Jefferson had personal issues with Marshall. Show me were Jefferson opposes the essential ruling in Marbury, the unconstitutionaluity of transferring powers.


I already did several times.

[Galileo Galilei]

Yes, Jefferson opposed the Philidelphia convention conspirators as an "assembly of demigods."

He did, however, author the Declaration of independence, a much more anti-government document, which stated that British law did not apply here.



I already did several times.

No, you haven't. Jefferson did not support twisting the US Constitution. He opposed things like the War Powers Act or law by Administrative Agency. You haven't found the quote because it doesn't exist. That only reason Jefferson complained about the case was because he didn't like John Marshall. It is a good idea to not judge people when their personal prejuces get in the way. And he barely ever bothered to even say anything, one or two letters when he was hot under the collar, that's it. Madison had better control of his emotions. You are a snake oil salesman. Marbury vs. Madison is a foundation for small government.

Jefferson never even bothered to veto a single law when he was president. That is called executive review.

[Galileo Galilei]

Yes, Jefferson opposed the Philidelphia convention conspirators as an "assembly of demigods."

He did, however, author the Declaration of independence, a much more anti-government document, which stated that British law did not apply here.



I already did several times.

Jefferson supported the Constitution, and no, he did not think the Founding Fathers at the Constitutional Convention were criminals. You have some serious problems to come in here and say this BS. If you don't like it here, move out.

[Agorism]

No, you haven't. Jefferson did not support twisting the US Constitution. He opposed things like the War Powers Act or law by Administrative Agency. You haven't found the quote because it doesn't exist. That only reason Jefferson complained about the case was because he didn't like John Marshall. It is a good idea to not judge people when their personal prejuces get in the way. And he barely ever bothered to even say anything, one or two letters when he was hot under the collar, that's it. Madison had better control of his emotions. You are a snake oil salesman. Marbury vs. Madison is a foundation for small government.

Jefferson never even bothered to veto a single law when he was president. That is called executive review.

I posted plenty of quotes above of Jefferson's opposition to the Marbury v. Madison decision.

I'll post one of the ones I've already posted again since I like it.


"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212




Here's what wikipedia says about it under it's criticism of the decision section.
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison)


Criticism

At the time Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning in this case, saying that if this view of judicial power became accepted, it would be "placing us under the despotism of an oligarchy."[22] Jefferson expanded on this in a letter he wrote some 20 years later to Justice William Johnson, whom he had appointed to the court in 1804.[23]
Some legal scholars have questioned the legal reasoning of Marshall's opinion. They argue that Marshall selectively quoted the Judiciary Act of 1789, interpreting it to grant the Supreme Court the power to hear writs of mandamus on original jurisdiction.[24] These scholars argue that there is little connection between the notion of original jurisdiction and the Supreme Court, and note that the Act seems to affirm the Court's power to exercise only appellate jurisdiction.[25] Furthermore, it has been argued that the Supreme Court should have been able to issue the writ on original jurisdiction based on the fact that Article III of the Constitution granted it the right to review on original jurisdiction "all cases affecting . . . public ministers and consuls," and that James Madison, Secretary of State at the time and defendant of the suit, should have fallen into that category of a "public minister [or] consul."[26]
Questions have also frequently been raised about the logic of Marshall's argument for judicial review, for example by Alexander Bickel in his book The Least Dangerous Branch. Bickel argues that Marshall's argument implies an unrealistically mechanical view of jurisprudence, one which suggests that the Court has an absolute duty to strike down every law it finds violative of the Constitution. Under Marshall's conception of the judicial process in Marbury, judges themselves have no independent agency and can never take into account the consequences of their actions when deciding cases—a notion that has been attacked by Richard Posner.
Marbury can also be criticized on grounds that it was improper for the Court to consider any issues beyond jurisdiction. After concluding that the Court lacked jurisdiction in the case, the further review regarding the substantive issues presented was arguably improper.[27] Also, it has been argued that Justice Marshall should have recused himself on the grounds that he was still acting Secretary of State at the time the commissions were to be delivered and it was his brother, James Marshall, who was charged with delivering a number of the commissions.[28]
Because the Constitution lacks a clear statement authorizing the Federal courts to nullify the acts of coequal branches, critics contend that the argument for judicial review must rely on a significant gloss on the Constitution's terms. Despite such criticisms of Marbury v. Madison, judicial review has been accepted in the American legal community.

[Agorism]

Jefferson supported the Constitution, and no, he did not think the Founding Fathers at the Constitutional Convention were criminals. You have some serious problems to come in here and say this BS. If you don't like it here, move out.

Jefferson called the delegates to the Philidelphia Convention a assembly of "demi-gods" and he did not attend.

Make of it what you will. He did not call then "criminals."

[Galileo Galilei]

Jefferson called the delegates to the Philidelphia Convention a assembly of "demi-gods" and he did not attend.

Make of it what you will. He did not call then "criminals."

You said Jefferson called them "conspirators". That's just stupid, his best friend James Madison was there. So was George Washington.

[Agorism]

You said Jefferson called them "conspirators". That's just stupid, his best friend James Madison was there. So was George Washington.

I said that Jefferson called the conspirators (my words) an "assembly of demigods."

I put it in quotes so that you could easily distinguish which words were being quoted and which were mine.


Yes, Jefferson opposed the Philidelphia convention conspirators as an "assembly of demigods."

See his words are in quotes.

[Galileo Galilei]

I posted plenty of quotes above of Jefferson's opposition to the Marbury v. Madison decision.

You haven't posted anything that opposes the doctrine that one branch of government cannot delepates powers to another entity.


I'll post one of the ones I've already posted again since I like it.




Here's what wikipedia says about it under it's criticism of the decision section.
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison)

If you believe this, then you believe in bigger government.

[Agorism]

You haven't posted anything that opposes the doctrine that one branch of government cannot delepates powers to another entity.

I posted quotes from Jefferson repeatedly opposing the decision in the case Marbury vs. Madison, and this was what the your original protests were concerning.

[Galileo Galilei]

I posted quotes from Jefferson repeatably opposing the decision in the case Marbury vs. Madison, and this was what the your original protests were concerning.

I'm looking for a quote where he opposes Marshall's opposition to the congress delegating power to another branch of government. Or a quote where Jefferson opposes this quote from the decision:

"All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

[Agorism]

I'm looking for a quote where he opposes Marshall's opposition to the congress delegating power to another branch of government. Or a quote where Jefferson opposes this quote from the decision:

"All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

I'm not debating the minutiae or other topics, and I have made no claims regarding the minutiae. My point is only that Jefferson adamantly opposed the Supreme Court ruling in the case Marbury vs Madison. If you want to see or understand Jefferson's reasoning, simply read his quotes for yourself. Previously you claimed that Jefferson supported the outcome of the case, which is where we disagree.

The Jefferson Cylopedia contains the quotes above that I posted on Jefferson's view of the case and is highlighted here (http://books.google.com/books?id=2D0gAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA190&lpg=PA190&dq=The+Constitution+on+this+hypothesis+is+a+mere+t hing+of+wax+in+the+hands+of+the+judiciary,+which+t hey+may+twist+and+shape+into+any+form+they+please&source=bl&ots=goC1LUHDur&sig=qrk7c2MGg3xBLGW5qtAVC_4L9yo&hl=en&ei=1qJQTKbDNoKC8gab-sjDAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=The%20Constitution%20on%20this%20hypothesis%20is %20a%20mere%20thing%20of%20wax%20in%20the%20hands% 20of%20the%20judiciary%2C%20which%20they%20may%20t wist%20and%20shape%20into%20any%20form%20they%20pl ease&f=false)


"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow... The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

[Galileo Galilei]

I'm not debating the minutiae or other topics, and I have made no claims regarding the minutiae. My point is only that Jefferson adamantly opposed the Supreme Court ruling in the case Marbury vs Madison. If you want to see or understand Jefferson's reasoning, simply read his quotes for yourself. Previously you claimed that Jefferson supported the outcome of the case, which is where we disagree.

The Jefferson Cylopedia contains the quotes above that I posted on Jefferson's view of the case and is highlighted here (http://books.google.com/books?id=2D0gAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA190&lpg=PA190&dq=The+Constitution+on+this+hypothesis+is+a+mere+t hing+of+wax+in+the+hands+of+the+judiciary,+which+t hey+may+twist+and+shape+into+any+form+they+please&source=bl&ots=goC1LUHDur&sig=qrk7c2MGg3xBLGW5qtAVC_4L9yo&hl=en&ei=1qJQTKbDNoKC8gab-sjDAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=The%20Constitution%20on%20this%20hypothesis%20is %20a%20mere%20thing%20of%20wax%20in%20the%20hands% 20of%20the%20judiciary%2C%20which%20they%20may%20t wist%20and%20shape%20into%20any%20form%20they%20pl ease&f=false)

If Jefferson really opposed the ruling, he could just have told James Madison to give Marbury his commission. Actions speak louder than words.

[Agorism]

If Jefferson really opposed the ruling, he could just have told James Madison to give Marbury his commission. Actions speak louder than words.

Jefferson was supposed to go back in time after the decision was issued to do that in order to adequately state his opposition?

[Galileo Galilei]

Jefferson was supposed to go back in time after the decision was issued to do that in order to adequately state his opposition?

I don't think you know what you are talking about. Jefferson won the case. Yes, he opposed some of Marshall's commentary. So Jefferson did not disagree with the whole case, just a part of it.

[Agorism]

Here's what I said on the first page

Jefferson wrote extensively about his opposition to the outcome of the case

When I said outcome I was referring to the reasoning and the legal precedent of establishing judicial review that Jefferson opposed.

[Galileo Galilei]

Here's what I said on the first page


When I said outcome I was referring to the reasoning and the legal precedent of establishing judicial review that Jefferson opposed.

OK, but the precedent set was that the congress could not delegate a power to another branch of government or another entity. I have seen nothing by Jeffersion where he opposes that. And Jefferson is not the be-all and end-all of Constitutional theory.

The Marshall court set the foundation for a very small central government, that as recently as 1912 only accounted for 1.75% of the GNP. Pretty much everything Oliver Wendell Holmes and then the New Deal court did was overturn Marshall. When they weren't overturning Marshall, they were overturning Madison and Jefferson.

In fact, the three most significant Founding Fathers as far as THE LAW is concerned are Madison 1st, Marshall 2nd, and Jefferson 3rd. These three men laid a foundation for liberty.

[Agorism]

OK, but the precedent set was that the congress could not delegate a power to another branch of government or another entity. I have seen nothing by Jeffersion where he opposes that. And Jefferson is not the be-all and end-all of Constitutional theory.

Judicial Review is the legal precedent for the S.C. to decide what is constitutional rather than the local militias, the state governors, State Supreme Courts, other branches of of the federal government (congress or president.)

This is what Jefferson opposed in my opinion. He wanted all sides of the contract negotiating its meaning rather than just the federal judicial branch.

Say you hire someone to mow your grass. You may decide if that person is following the "contract" or the "deal" as agreed to if he is always 2 weeks late and only mows 1/2 the yard at best and mowed it down to the dirt. At the same time, the person you hired may also decide if things are fair if you only pay him for half the hours he puts in or expect him to do something beyond what was agreed to. If either side is angry about what is going on, then that side will protest rather than only allowing one side to be the ruler. No one group or person gets to declare what the "rules" mean or what the interpretations are in a decentralized government.

[Galileo Galilei]

Judicial Review is the legal precedent for the S.C. to decide what is constitutional rather than the local militias, the state governors, State Supreme Courts, other branches of of the federal government (congress or president.)

This is what Jefferson opposed in my opinion. He wanted all sides of the contract negotiating its meaning rather than just the federal judicial branch.

Say you hire someone to mow your grass. You may decide if that person is following the "contract" or the "deal" as agreed to if he is always 2 weeks late and only mows 1/2 the yard at best and mowed it down to the dirt. At the same time, the person you hired may also decide if things are fair if you only pay him for half the hours he puts in or expect him to do something beyond what was agreed to. If either side is angry about what is going on, then that side will protest rather than only allowing one side to be the ruler. No one group or person gets to declare what the "rules" mean or what the interpretations are in a decentralized government.

The Supreme Court is not the final judge of the Constitution. Since Marbury vs. Madison, many presidents have vetoed laws on Constitutional grounds. Many states asserted nullification, which is just another name for "review" of the Constitution. Juries have asserted to be the final judge of the Constitution when they aquitted people for unjust laws. People who smoke pot are asserting the individual right ot nullify an unconstitutional law. Ron Paul asserts the power to vote against unconstitutional bills submitted into congress. etc.

Marbury vs. Madison is the source of all this.

I vividly remember about 20 years ago reading John Marshall's quote; "All laws repugant to the Constitution are null and void", and then lighting up a bong hit. I, personally, nullified the drugs laws when I did that.

[Agorism]

I agree with that, but that is not the conclusion in the ruling. Since Marbury, The S.C. has ruled many laws unconstitutional, and these rulings almost always hold.

[Galileo Galilei]

I agree with that, but that is not the conclusion in the ruling. Since Marbury, The S.C. has ruled many laws unconstitutional, and these rulings almost always hold.

They can rule things unconstitutional. That's good. But the other branches of government can still do it, too.

[Agorism]

They can rule things unconstitutional. That's good. But the other branches of government can still do it, too.

The case had implications for the power of the federal judiciary's power as the rule maker beyond just the interplay between congress, executive and judiciary.

From wiki on the Supreme court. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States)

In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee,[10] the Court ruled that it had the power to correct interpretations of the federal Constitution made by state supreme courts.[11][12] Both Marbury and Martin confirmed that the Court was entrusted with maintaining the consistent and orderly development of federal law.

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee case on wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_v._Hunter%27s_Lessee)

Marbury v. Madison was in 1803. Martin v. Hunter was in 1816


Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case decided on March 20, 1816. It was the first case to assert ultimate Supreme Court authority over state courts in matters of federal law.

[Galileo Galilei]

The case had implications for the power of the federal judiciary's power as the rule maker beyond just the interplay between congress, executive and judiciary.

So what if it had implications. A lot of presidential vetoes have had implications. The judiciary is the weakest branch of government.


From wiki on the Supreme court. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States)


Martin v. Hunter's Lessee case on wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_v._Hunter%27s_Lessee)

Marbury v. Madison was in 1803. Martin v. Hunter was in 1816

Great, they asserted it. But Wisconsin asserted it in the 1850s when they resisted fugitive slave laws, so that superceded a case from 1816.

But then Grover Cleveland vetoed 400 laws, so he asserted final authority in the 1880s and 1890s.

[Agorism]

Cleveland wasn't vetoing S.C. decisions though, and when was the last time a state supreme court overruled the Supreme Court. Andrew Jackson effectively overruled the S.C. it a couple times for a bad reason once, but that's about it, and the executive branch is my least favorite branch anyways.

Jefferson's view of the S.C. is essentially nothing more than an advisory board with no real power.

[Galileo Galilei]

Cleveland wasn't vetoing S.C. decisions though, and when was the last time a state supreme court overruled the Supreme Court. Andrew Jackson effectively overruled the S.C. it a couple times for a bad reason once, but that's about it, and the executive branch is my least favorite branch anyways.

Jefferson's view of the S.C. is essentially nothing more than an advisory board with no real power.

If we went back to precedents of the Marshall court, we would have a much smaller government than today. Marshall-bashing is a very ineffective way to advance liberty today.

[John Taylor]

If we went back to precedents of the Marshall court, we would have a much smaller government than today. Marshall-bashing is a very ineffective way to advance liberty today.

Nonsense.

[jmdrake]

In certain ways the Supreme Court has used the Maubury power of judicial review to expand government. For instance it created a "right to abortion" out of thin air and took away the states right to regulate abortion. Then it restricted free exercise of religion to a lower level of scrutiny than rights it deemed "fundamental" such as abortion, even though free exercise actually is spelled out in the constitution. When congress tried to rectify this by passing RFRA, the Sct struck RFRA down as applied to the states even though it didn't have to. It could have reached the same verdict simply by saying zoning restrictions on renovation of a church doesn't fall under an "undue burden" like a ban on Peyote use does. But instead the SCt decided that it must protect its "Maubury" turf.

[Galileo Galilei]

Nonsense.

Let's see:

No delegation of powers from one branch to another entity;

this excludes the War Powers Act

this excludes laws by administratuive agencies, which make up 85% of all laws on the books.

Reasoning from the text rather than precedent:

this would overturn most Supreme Court decisions since the New Deal.

"All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void"

this excludes most laws written since 1912.

The commerce clause

Marshall did not use the commerce clause to regulate agriculture or manufacturing. Nor did he use it to regulate commerce within a state. This alone would make our federal government smaller by several degrees.

Also, things like the war on drugs, the war on terror, and the department of education, etc. are foreign to the reasonings of John Marshall.

These are the facts.

[Galileo Galilei]

In certain ways the Supreme Court has used the Maubury power of judicial review to expand government. For instance it created a "right to abortion" out of thin air and took away the states right to regulate abortion. Then it restricted free exercise of religion to a lower level of scrutiny than rights it deemed "fundamental" such as abortion, even though free exercise actually is spelled out in the constitution. When congress tried to rectify this by passing RFRA, the Sct struck RFRA down as applied to the states even though it didn't have to. It could have reached the same verdict simply by saying zoning restrictions on renovation of a church doesn't fall under an "undue burden" like a ban on Peyote use does. But instead the SCt decided that it must protect its "Maubury" turf.

The right of abortion does not expand government. Women can have abortions without the "help" of the government. The right of abortion is a natural right, not created by government. It is alluded to in the 9th Amendment.

States don't have rights, people do. You are a statist.