Devil505 wrote:Marbury v. Madison
Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the Federal courts to interpret what the Constitution permits. (my emphasis)
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution.
The SCOTUS , (being part of the third branch of our government).... means that the government does indeed have the authority to interpret what the founding Fathers meant when they wrote the Constitution.
Marbury made the case that SCOTUS has judicial review . It doesn't allow the courts to re-write the law, nor interpret the law in a way in which the law was not intended. Don't get too excited, Dev. It doesn't give the courts the right to deny the second amendment rights to citizens by eliminating ammunition because that effectively infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. There is no point to a gun that has no ammo.
Recall that free speech has many repugnant forms but most are protected. What is not protected is libel and slander and shouting "fire" in a movie theater.
The courts must review in a mannor prescribed by law and Marbury.