[Cboldt]

Marbury v. Madison stands for a simple couple of propositions.

1. Where the constitution and a statute are in conflict, one or the other has to control the outcome. CJ Marshall said the Constitution had to prevail in such a case.

2. The constitution gives SCOTUS certain original jurisdiction. SCOTUS can only take an original dispute, if it is one of the categories enumerated in the constitution. This issue was not in one of the areas that the constitution provides SCOTUS with jurisdiction. Lacking jurisdiction, the court could not hear or decide the case.

Marbury v. Madison is about the LIMITED power of the Court.

But, as is their wont, subsequent and lower courts have bastardized what the case really stands for, in order to flip it on its head and make it stand for the proposition that the court is all powerful and the final say. Neither those propositions is true, either. SCOTUS is not all powerful, and it does not have the final say.

[ExTxMarine]

SCOTUS is not all powerful, and it does not have the final say.

I agree. It has been a year or two since I was in school, but I distinctly remember a few of our Founding Fathers said or mentioned that "We the people" were to be the final say in what is and is not appropriate, legal, Constitutional, etc...

Jury annulment, voter box, petition the government, etc... were all tools which they left for us to use; and of course, when all else fails...the 2nd Amendment!

I feel that we Conservatives have rolled over for the black robes of many courts and THAT is why we are in a slow boat to Socialist China in our own current government!