Marshall said that acts repugnant to our constitutuion are void.
IE, -- the simple words of the Constitution are supreme over ~everyone~ ; -- courts, legislatures, and the executive. BR> Marshall didn't 'make it up' he reasoned that:
"-- it is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature. --- --- Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." John Marshall, 1803
______________________________________
Marbury v. Madison (1803) Address:http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm
Actually, Mr. Justice Scalia is correct:
"[The Federal high court] made it up."
The Constitution nowhere delegates to the court the power to determine what the Constitution means.
Not at issue. -- Read Marbury, wherein Marshall points out exactly where the USSC gets jurisdiction to judge the constitutionality of ~new~ law. Like CFR.. -- Where they just erred.
"The critical importance of Marbury is the assumption of several powers by the Supreme Court. One was the authority to declare acts of Congress, and by implication acts of the president, unconstitutional if they exceeded the powers granted by the Constitution. But even more important, the Court became the arbiter of the Constitution, the final authority on what the document meant." Melvin I. Urofsky, Marbury v. Madison - Background and Explanation But let's go to the "horse's mouth" – Mr. Justice Marshall's opinion: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." "...(I)t is apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated [the Constitution] as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature."
The last line makes MY point, not yours.
Quite obviously, Mr. Justice Marshall wanted to have it both ways: he gave lip-service to the Constitution "as a rule for the government of courts," but also claimed (with no obvious constitutional basis) a power "to say what the law [including the Constitution] is."
Wrong. He only claimed the power on new legislation, made by Congress or by state or local governments.
The Constitution/BOR's is our supreme law, not to be violated by anyone. Marshall made that clear in M v M.
That is precisely the issue. I invite you to cite the article, section, and clause of the Constitution that delegates to the court the final say in constitutional interpretation. Thomas Jefferson couldn't find it, James Madison couldn't find it - and I doubt Thomas Paine could have found it, either.
Have at it...
;>)