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.
Article III Sec 1 & 2 delegates the judicial Power to the USSC.
Final say? Thats BS, -- 'we the people' have final say.
Sorry, sport, but "Article III Sec 1 & 2" don't contradict Mr. Justice Scalia's statement - unless, perhaps, you adopt the circular argument that 'limited judicial review constitutes exclusive and final constitutional review because limited judicial review is equivalent to exclusive and final constitutional review.'
Sorry sport. You asked me to cite the article, section, and clause of the Constitution that delegates to the court judical power. Now you want to play word games about who's making circular arguments. -- You are, imo.
Here's another example. I wrote:
Funny, it was easy to find. I suspect you're hyping the situation. Why is that?
LOL! "Easy to find?" Put it in print, my friend: quote the constitutional article, section and clause that delegate to the court the power of exclusive and final constitutional review. "Article III Sec 1 & 2" say nothing of the sort. 'I suspect you're avoiding a direct quotation. Why is that?'
There is no such thing as "the power of exclusive and final constitutional review".. Thus, NO ONE can 'quote' it. -- Weird game you play.
You claim that 'the Constitution of the United States says that the Supreme Court shall be the last word on what the Constitution means,'
No, I did not. You lie.
and that it delegates to 'the Supreme Court the authority to disregard statutes enacted by the congress of the United States on the ground that in its view they do not comport with the Constitution.'
Another lie. I've written no such thing.
Sorry to disappoint you, but Mr. Justice Marshall's 'opinion' is not equivalent to the United States Constitution...
Never said it was. Do you enjoy making up such tales?
John, you really should study Marshalls opinion, if you intend to dispute it.
LOL! Your attempts to change the subject are really quite entertaining! I have repeatedly disputed your suggestion that the Constitution delegates the power of exclusive and final constitutional review to the court.
That is not my view. You're getting daffy.
As for Mr. Justice Marshall's opinion, it remains logically flawed: no entity can claim a power to say what the law is, and claim simultaneously to be somehow bound by that same law.
I suggest you write to some law review, outlining ~your~ 'logic' refuting Marshalls. -- Be sure to include lots of LOL's & smileys..
“Not at issue.” We were discussing ‘final and exclusive constitutional review:’ what Mr, Justice Scalia refers to as “the last word on what the Constitution means.” You claim that Mr. Justice Scalia is wrong, and leap to the conclusion that “judicial Power” is equivalent to ‘final and exclusive constitutional review.’ You have yet to prove either point.
;>)
Final say? Thats BS, -- 'we the people' have final say.
That hardly proves Mr. Justice Scalia wrong – in fact, “the last line makes MY point, not yours.”
;>)
Sorry sport. You asked me to cite the article, section, and clause of the Constitution that delegates to the court judical power.
Wrong – I never asked you “to cite the article, section, and clause of the Constitution that delegates to the court judical power.” But your attempt to swap horses in mid-stream is quite entertaining.!
;>)
Now you want to play word games about who's making circular arguments. -- You are, imo.
LOL! We’ve been discussing “the last word on what the Constitution means.” Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson suggested that “the last word on what the Constitution means” resided with the individual States, not the federal judiciary. Now, it may be news to you, but a “State” is not a ‘federal court.’ Your attempt to equate ‘final and exclusive constitutional review’ with ‘”judicial power” is nothing but a “word game,” and (given your complete lack of substantiation) resembles a circular argument.
;>)
There is no such thing as "the power of exclusive and final constitutional review"..
Then why do you claim it resides with “we the people?” How can “-- 'we the people' have final say” if a “final say” regarding the meaning of the Constitution doesn’t exist?
“Weird game you play. “
;>)
WIJG: You claim that 'the Constitution of the United States says that the Supreme Court shall be the last word on what the Constitution means,' and that it delegates to 'the Supreme Court the authority to disregard statutes enacted by the congress of the United States on the ground that in its view they do not comport with the Constitution.'
tp: No, I did not. You lie.
Mr. Justice Scalia stated:
”The Constitution of the United States nowhere says that the Supreme Court shall be the last word on what the Constitution means. Or that the Supreme Court shall have the authority to disregard statutes enacted by the congress of the United States on the ground that in its view they do not comport with the Constitution. It doesn't say that anywhere. We made it up."
You REPEATEDLY claimed he was “wrong.” Tell us:
Does “the Constitution of the United States say that the Supreme Court shall be the last word on what the Constitution means?” If not, then Mr. Justice Scalia was right, not “wrong” as you claimed.
Does the Constitution say “that the Supreme Court shall have the authority to disregard statutes enacted by the congress of the United States on the ground that in its view they do not comport with the Constitution?” If not, then Mr. Justice Scalia was right, not “wrong” as you claimed.
Perhaps you’ve changed your mind...
WIJG: Sorry to disappoint you, but Mr. Justice Marshall's 'opinion' is not equivalent to the United States Constitution...
tp: Never said it was. Do you enjoy making up such tales?
“Tales?” Now you’re hurting my feelings! Let’s take a look at my post, and your response:
WIJG: 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...
tp: (“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.. “) Funny, it was easy to find. I suspect you're hyping the situation. Why is that? <
Here's a bit of what Marshall said in 1803
I asked you to “cite the article, section, and clause of the Constitution that delegates to the court the final say in constitutional interpretation,” noting that “Thomas Jefferson couldn't find it, [and] James Madison couldn't find it.” You responded with “a bit of what Marshall said in 1803.” How nice - you certainly appear to be equating “a bit of what Marshall said” with “the article, section, and clause of the Constitution that delegates to the court the final say in constitutional interpretation.”
‘You really should study my posts, if you intend to dispute them.’
;>)
WIJG: I have repeatedly disputed your suggestion that the Constitution delegates the power of exclusive and final constitutional review to the court.
tp: That is not my view. You're getting daffy.
Apparently you have changed your mind – you now appear to be claiming that you agree with Mr. Justice Scalia. Congratulations...
I suggest you write to some law review, outlining ~your~ 'logic' refuting Marshalls. -- Be sure to include lots of LOL's & smiley
Darn – I was hoping you could point out any 'holes' in my reasoning (I wouldn’t want to submit a flawed argument to “some law review,” now would I? ;>). Obviously you couldn’t find any.
(LOL! Here, tp, have another “smiley”... ;>)