[tpaine]

the more fundamental question of where the Supreme Court is going to find in the Constitution its delegation of power and authority to substitute its judgement for the judgement of an elected Congress on these issues. It just isn't there.
157 -Scenic-

---

Sounds wrote:
tpaine, I have only one more thing to say to you - I agree with you. Completely.

---

Your post at 157, above, belies your 'agreement'.

Do you find it amusing to misrepresent your political positions, and argue both sides of the fence?
Or are you too dense to be aware of doing so? Which is it?

[Scenic Sounds]

Do you find it amusing to misrepresent your political positions, and argue both sides of the fence?

Or are you too dense to be aware of doing so? Which is it?

Those are my choices? You're just too generous with me, tpaine! ;-)

I think you think we disagree with one another on whether the Constitution contains express authority to the Supreme Court to hold an act of Congress unconstitutional. I'm not suggesting that an argument for judicial review cannot be constructed. That is, after all, what Chief Justice Marshall did in the Marbury case and so it would be impossible for me to deny that it can be done.

On the other hand, I do not think that Chief Justice Marshall's argument in favor of his Court's power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional was the only possible way of reading the Constitution. As I pointed out, Jefferson disagreed with Marshall on that.

And my point has only been that, whether he was right or wrong about Marbury, I think that the Court would be more comfortable about striking down Congressional legislation if the Constitution more clearly and expressly authorized the Court to do so.

Now, then, what specifically do you think that we actually disagree about here? ;-)