mikeandgerry wrote:Marbury was decided one hundred years before the lefties decided to exploit it to destroy laws they couldn't change in the legislature. The lefties read more into Marbury than exists.
The law doesn't provide for a redefinition of the word "infringed" by the SCOTUS nor does it mean that SCOTUS can render the constitution unconstitutional .
Look Mike...I know Stockinbgful has made this point to you but you are making a fool of yourself. ANYONE who understands Constitutional Law would not argude the FACT that the U.S. Supreme Court is the FINAL, DECISIVE & INCONTROVERTIBLE LAST WORD
on the constitutionality or (lack thereof) of ANY
law passed by Congress or ANY action taken by the Executive Branch .....PERIOD...FULL STOP....END Of DISCUSSION!!
The fact that you obviously don't agree with the decision (Marbury v Madison) means nothing & you sound like a fool arguing something that is just fantasy. I'll say it one more time: The Law is what the SCOTUS says it is & THE Constitution means what the SCOTUS says it rmeans!
As usual, you are spouting things that other people put in your head and have done no research what-so-ever.
In his opinion, Chief Justice Marshall said that while Marbury was entitled to the commission, the Supreme Court did not have the power to issue the writ of mandamus. This was because the Judiciary Act of 1789, the act written by Congress which authorized the Supreme Court the to issue such writs, was unconstitutional. Thus, the Court gave up the power to issue writs, but affirmed their power of judicial review, saying that if a law written by the legislature conflicts with the Constitution, the law is "null and void."
In Justice Marshall's own words, ""All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void."
The only one making a fool of themselves here, as usual, is you Devil.