Larry Flynt Revealed by an Ex-Employee

No. People need to understand that the legal community has been lied to (deceived) and therefore continues in the lies about Marbury and what it really means. Before the lies were promulgated there was little interest in the ruling because it actually stood in the way of growing the power of the Court. This is because Marbury was NOT about the obligation to review statutes relative to the Law but about the only methodology for review that was legitimate.

First off, it was NOT Marbury where it was considered proper to review statutes relative to the Law, which Marshall himself takes pains to note in the opinion. Rather that happened earlier with a controversy involving revolutionary war pensions where jurists were improperly assigned administrative branch functions and responsibilities to manage these pensions.

Moreover to understand Marbury’s structure you need to realize that because Marshall was the Secretary of State involved in the incident of the “Midnight Judges” in addition to clearly laying out the precedent that review of laws was proper he set forth the case that Mr Marbury deserved his Writ of Mandamus to basically demonstrate his fitness to render the opinion despite his prior involvement.

The actual meat of the ruling only begins after these considerably long preliminaries AFTER Marshall writes: “This, then, is a plain case of a mandamus, either to deliver the commission, or a copy of it from the record; and it only remains to be inquired, Whether it can issue from this court.”

It is here, finally, that we see Marshall lay out the justification for review of statutes that arises because Justices are made to take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution and characterizes it as “worse than a solemn mockery” to make them take such an oath and yet require them to turn a blind eye to the Constitution and see only statutes.

Review is not a power but an obligation rooted in fidelity to the Constitution ... and here I would note that Marshall takes pains to address the exercise of the original right to make Law that lay only with those that Ratified it, what THEY AGREED to is the Law, nothing else. That is why it is important when the original right is exercised ... the whole theory of the modern Court, how it operates acting as if the mere appearance of words on paper only matters but leaving their meaning up to the mores and passions of the time, is fundamentally in error.

You may also note that the power of review IS NOT addressed by Article 3 at all, and is not an enumerated power of the Court. It is only because they are charged to be faithful to the Law as it was agreed to that they can stand in judgment of statutes.

And Marshall expressly notes that others in other departments take similar oaths.

So if it is worse than a solemn mockery to require Justices to close their eyes to the Constitution and only see statute the what is it to require others to close their eyes to the Constitution and only see the opinions of the Court where it has proverbially scribbled in the margins with their crayons?

Review is only destructive, not constructive. It cannot make something that was not speech “speech”, it cannot lawfully depart from what those that Ratified agreed to ... it cannot lawfully hold to just the mere appearance of words on paper, form without substance or function and by deciding new meanings to the words construct new powers for the federal or remove old powers from the States or the people that have never been enumerated to the federal.

The modern Court are thieves of powers, they have not built a tower of jurisprudence but dangled a shanty of usurpations out over the abyss of Arbitrary government.

The financial and national ruin we face is the nation falling into that abyss.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.