[Chancellor Palpatine]

That would be when their contemporary, John Marshall, interpreted it as such in 1803. He knew them, and had a much greater ability to discern what they meant than you do.

The other interesting part is that they didn't slap him silly, and willingly acceded to his viewpoint.

[jwalsh07]

That would be when their contemporary, John Marshall, interpreted it as such in 1803. He knew them, and had a much greater ability to discern what they meant than you do.

Certainly he knew them which is why he didn't order Madison to commission Marbury because he knew Madison and Jefferson would have told him to take a hike. So he dodged, another stain maker.

[Texas Federalist]

John Marshall was a huge proponent of Hamiltons vision of a strong central government, acted as such, and took much criticism from the same individuals at the time who viewed Hamilton negatively. His decision in Marbury has no basis in the text of the Constitution. Moreover, reliance on this decision is circular: if the judiciary didn't have the power to interpret the document in the first place, how could they interpret it to give themselves the power to interpret it?

I think Marbury was right to the extent that it stood for the proposition that the judiciary could deem a law unconstitutional. But the proposition that they have the final and only say on the matter is a relatively new one. Congress and the executive branch routinely undertook extensive analysis of the constitutionality of a law before passing or signing it until around the time of the New Deal.