[robertpaulsen]

"That wasn't the holding in Marbury,"

Of course not. It was the result of the holding, and established the doctrine of judicial review.

"Since when is that a valid form of logic?"

Well, it sure beats the prior "logic" of Congress deciding what's constitutional. Or do you prefer that?

[tpaine]

"prior logic" lie bumpkin

[inquest]

It was the result of the holding, and established the doctrine of judicial review.

Says who? The court?

Well, it sure beats the prior "logic" of Congress deciding what's constitutional.

That wasn't the logic prior to Marbury, either. Both types of "logic" are fundamentally the same in that they're completely circular. "So-and-so [fill in the blank] says they're the final arbiter of the Constitution, therefore they are". Why do you cling to that type of reasoning?