[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.

[EternalVigilance]

"A lawyer without history or literature is a mechanic, a mere working mason; if he possesses some knowledge of these, he may venture to call himself an architect.

-Sir Walter Scott

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Thats the difference between southerners like you and southerners like me - you seek out and try to excuse notions of majoritarianism, and I see what majoritarian tyranny did to its victims and how much it warped southern culture, and prefer that it be checked by a strong judiciary.