[1stFreedom]

Do you want to take our country back from the courts? Or do you want to have another court full of Republican appointees who won't give it back to us??

It's up to you...

[jla]

bump

[jla]

fyi

[John Filson]

bttt

[k2blader]

BUMP.

I also think this issue is very helpful in determining whether or not one is truly pro-Constitution.

[Hardastarboard]

the flawed principle of stare decisis (doctrine of precedent/settled law)

Stare decisis is a serious problem. It pretty much means, "No matter how bad, immoral, unconstitutional, destructive, or stupid the ruling was, it was made by nine philosopher kings in black robes, so we have to abide by it for eternity".

[Borges]

Judicial Review seems spelled out by Hamilton in Fedaralist Paper #78. What else would 'all Judicial Power' in the USC mean? Without it Congress could pass a law tomorrow cancelling all future elections and the citizenry would have no legal remedy.

[1stFreedom]

Ping!

[Brilliant]

The problem with dumping Marbury is that there is nothing to replace it with. Someone has got to be the final authority on the interpretation of the Constitution. If it's not the Court, then who is it?

On the other hand, I do think that making Marbury v. Madison into a national debate is a good idea. The activists on the Court are so smug in their belief that they control everything. If they were faced with the prospect that the Congress and the President would no longer accept the Marbury v. Madison decision, then they might moderate their extremism.

And the fact is that it's the acceptance of Marbury by the Executive and the Congress that gives the doctrine its bite. If the other branches of government would not accept it, then it's meaningless.

[robertpaulsen]

"Do you want to take our country back from the courts?"

And give it to ...? Congress? Uh, no.

[Crackingham]

Even Robert Bork has said that Marbury was a good decision. He said exactly that in his book The Tempting of America.

[satchmodog9]

link is dead.

[Servant of the 9]

A court that can't rule on Congressional actions is pointless.
It certainly isn't a third branch of Government.

It makes a farce of the amendment process outlined in the Constitution, since Congress could just override any part of the Constitution with a simple majority

The Framers of the Constitution, and those who voted to approve it were mostly still around when Marbury was decided and could and would have amended the Constitution to overrule it if they had not felt it to be what they had intended.

So9

[Cboldt]

Marbury v. Madison is misconstrued in the vast majority of citations. The crux of that case was "As between Congressional and Constititional law, which should prevail?" Marshall come down on the side of "Constitutional," and said that in similar cases (choosing between Constitution and Congress), the court was duty bound to be constrained by the superior.

The phrase, "What the law is," is to choose between the Constitution and the Congress. In the case at hand, the plaintiff was asking for the Supreme Court to exercise a power that the Constitution did not grant to the Supreme Court. The plaintiff was (rightfully) denied the remedy requested.

[wagglebee]

This is one of the best editorials I've ever read on Marbury v. Madison, and even better is the fact that it's short and straightforward.

[spunkets]

" stare decisis"

Has nothing to do with judicial review. Judicial Review was given to the SCOTUS in the Constitution. Stare decisis includes decisions made under the fundamental fact of jurisdiction and power given the SCOTUS by the Constitution.

[goldstategop]

We need to pass a law declaring that Congress has the final word on constitutional interpretation and that federal courts do not have the power to pronounce on the validity of any federal law. That would be one way to override Marbury and eliminate the unwarranted power grab of the courts. Congress could do this since the Constitution is silent on the question of judicial review by the courts. If we want to remain a free country with a responsible judiciary bound by the rule of law, judicial review must be abolished.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[You Dirty Rats]

It's essential that you call your Senators and the White House Monday to demand nomination and approval of nominess who reject both Marbury V. Madison and "stare decisis".

Utter waste of time. Any prospective nominee who advocated such irresponsible legal positions would be laughed out of the Senate.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Don't forget to eliminate judicial immunity while you're at it. Under the current way our judicial system operates, a corrupt or incompetent judge can do anything he wants to you while functioning "in a judicial capacity"--he can lie, fabricate evidence, ignore the law, make up his own law to deprive you of your life, liberty, or property. We won't have freedom until we hold judges accountable for their behavior. Each and every judicial hearing needs to be taped, and each judge's performance and behavior needs to be continuously reviewed--not by his coopted peers, but by a body of citizens. Penalties for misbehavior should be severe.

[Torie]

Rejecting Marbury V. Madison means that any Congressional statute is ipso facto Constitutional. Is that what you mean?

[Eva]

I think that Scalia would do exactly what you are asking. He sited in one of his recent opinions that the ruling that created the precident was just bad law. I think he said something like, it wasn't one of the courts finer moments.