Trash talking right wing media lies claim 3 police officers

Devil505 wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:I know what I said. You don't seem to remember what you said.

I know what Marbury means for common law.

You don't understand that it doens't apply to constitutional law.

I just couldn't let this ridiculous statement go.......So now we're differentiating between Common Law & Constitutional Law & claiming Marbury v Madison doesn't apply to ALL law????
You are doing what you do best.....trying to cover your error with a verbal "Smoke Screen" of BS & lead to a totally different argument. We'll let real lawyers look at this interplay & decide which one of us is right.

Marbury cannot apply to Constitutional law.

Why? That would make the lifetime appointed judges of the SCOTUS a dictatorship should they choose to be one.

Use your noggin.

You need to ask yourself if this nation is run by the people or the lawyers. I say the people. What say you?

mikeandgerry wrote:Did you, or did you not, say or imply that Marbury allows the SCOTUS to decide what "infringed" means in the Constitution?

I muyst be a glutton for punishment Mike but I will try to say it clearly ONE MORE TIME:
Marbury v Madison gives the SCOTUS the FINAL AUTHORITY (u nder U.S. law of all types) to decide what the founding Fathers meant when they wrote the U.S. Constitution.

Therefore, I not only implied it....I came right out & SAID it@! The SCOTUS certainly has the final word on interpreting what the founding fathers meant when they used the word "infringed" or any other word in the English language!

I can't be any clearer than that. If you don't agree with that decision....TOUGH!

mikeandgerry wrote:You need to ask yourself if this nation is run by the people or the lawyers. I say the people. What say you?

I say I've made my point clearly & unequivocally & this debate is at an end. (call your local law school & argue with them)

Devil505 wrote:

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.

Devil505 wrote:I muyst be a glutton for punishment Mike but I will try to say it clearly ONE MORE TIME:
Marbury v Madison gives the SCOTUS the FINAL AUTHORITY (u nder U.S. law of all types) to decide what the founding Fathers meant when they wrote the U.S. Constitution.

Therefore, I not only implied it....I came right out & SAID it@! The SCOTUS certainly has the final word on interpreting what the founding fathers meant when they used the word "infringed" or any other word in the English language!

I can't be any clearer than that. If you don't agree with that decision....TOUGH!

So you really think they can determine that an English word with ample documentation and clear evidence of the intent of the Founders can be changed in meaning to render the Constitution a babbling missive unto itself without meaning?

Is that what you really want to argue? That the effect of Marbury, i.e. SCOTUS, claimed a power over the Constitution that was not conferred by it?

That's a whole new twist, my friend.

For any other forum member who is crazy enough to still be reading this thread, I'll ask you to decide for yourself by talking to anyone who truly understand U.S. Constitutional Law & again reading the summary below:

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.

This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed by President John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia but whose commission was not subsequently delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents, but the court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, denied Marbury's petition, holding that the statute upon which he based his claim, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional.

Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court declared something "unconstitutional," and established the concept of judicial review in the U.S. (the idea that courts may oversee and nullify the actions of another branch of government). The landmark decision helped define the "checks and balances" of the American form of government. (my emphasis)

Devil505 wrote:For any other forum member who is crazy enough to still be reading this thread, I'll ask you to decide for yourself by talking to anyone who truly understand U.S. Constitutional Law & again reading the summary below:

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.

This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed by President John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia but whose commission was not subsequently delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents, but the court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, denied Marbury's petition, holding that the statute upon which he based his claim, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional.

Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court declared something "unconstitutional," and established the concept of judicial review in the U.S. (the idea that courts may oversee and nullify the actions of another branch of government). The landmark decision helped define the "checks and balances" of the American form of government. (my emphasis)

Another thing they teach you in DEA school Devil? A lie of omission is still a lie. You left out the best part which I thankfully included for you below.

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."

mikeandgerry wrote:Is that what you really want to argue? That the effect of Marbury, i.e. SCOTUS, claimed a power over the Constitution that was not conferred by it?

YES@!@!...You finally get it! That's EXACTLY what Marbury v Madison decided & did confer that power (to interpret the Constitution) exclusively on the SCOTUS, & that authority was not written into the Constitution...anywhere.
(the fact that a few of you don't like it doesn't make it invalid or untrue!)

Devil505 wrote:Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court declared something "unconstitutional," and established the concept of judicial review in the U.S. (the idea that courts may oversee and nullify the actions of another branch of government). The landmark decision helped define the "checks and balances" of the American form of government. (my emphasis)

I know and appreciate Marbury. I also appreciate the court system. But quite simply, the SCOTUS cannot nullify the Constitution. The Constitution represents neither the executive branch nor the legislative branch. The Constitution is from the people. The people retain the power over the government. The Second Amendment guarantees that. That is why I defend the Second Amendment vigorously and without apology.

If the Second Amendment falls to the double talk of lawyers and politicians, I will fire the first shot in the second American Revolution. If it falls as a result of the will of the people as prescribed in Article V, I will submit to their will.

Devil505 wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:Is that what you really want to argue? That the effect of Marbury, i.e. SCOTUS, claimed a power over the Constitution that was not conferred by it?

YES@!@!...You finally get it! That's EXACTLY what Marbury v Madison decided & did confer that power (to interpret the Constitution) exclusively on the SCOTUS, & that authority was not written into the Constitution...anywhere.
(the fact that a few of you don't like it doesn't make it invalid or untrue!)

Now we know you're nuts.

jpete wrote:Another thing they teach you in DEA school Devil? A lie of omission is still a lie. You left out the best part which I thankfully included for you below.

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."

I guess some people just can't debate without resorting to childish name calling.
What does that sentence mean to you?..."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."
What is your legal interpretation of that sentence?

mikeandgerry wrote: YES@!@!...You finally get it! That's EXACTLY what Marbury v Madison decided & did confer that power (to interpret the Constitution) exclusively on the SCOTUS, & that authority was not written into the Constitution...anywhere.
(the fact that a few of you don't like it doesn't make it invalid or untrue!)




Now we know you're nuts.

I may well be nuts to continue this silly exercise but......provide links showing that I'm wrong. If the SCOTUS doesn't have the final word on the Constitutionality of any law or action of any branch of the U. S. government....Show me who does?

Devil505 wrote:

jpete wrote:Another thing they teach you in DEA school Devil? A lie of omission is still a lie. You left out the best part which I thankfully included for you below.

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."

I guess some people just can't debate without resorting to childish name calling.
What does that sentence mean to you?..."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."
What is your legal interpretation of that sentence?

The sentence states that the Constitution is paramount. If a law conflicts with it, the SCOTUS can declare it null and void. The second amendment IS the Constitution. It requires something more, namely the people, to change it.

Devil505 wrote:I may well be nuts to continue this silly exercise but......provide links showing that I'm wrong. If the SCOTUS doesn't have the final word on the Constitutionality of any law or action of any branch of the U. S. government....Show me who does?

The SCOTUS does have the final say on the Constitutionality of all law except the Constitution itself.

They can interpret it but they cannot change its original meaning. That's all I'm saying. Your argument that "infringed" could be interpreted by the SCOTUS to mean something else would be grounds for revolt.

mikeandgerry wrote:The sentence states that the Constitution is paramount.

Of cxourse, but who interprets what the Constitution really means if there is a dispute?...THE SCOTUS