Replies

"In essence, he declared that Madison should have delivered the commission to Marbury, but then held that the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus exceeded the authority allotted the Court under Article III of the Constitution, and was therefore null and void."

First of all, those words were written by a very liberal writer in 1994, just a bit more than 14 years after the ratification of the Constitution, and at a time when I'm pretty sure none of the original drafters were around to comment on it. Secondly, nothing in that statement says anything to the effect that SCOTUS is the final authority on the meaning of the Constitution.

As you know, SCOTUS caved.

So what are you saying? That anyone who can force his will on the law is the final arbiter of the law?

"Secondly, nothing in that statement says anything to the effect that SCOTUS is the final authority on the meaning of the Constitution."

Well, what is it, inquest? First you say the SCOTUS appointed themselves final arbiters -- now you say they didn't.

Figure that out and then get back to me with your question.

"First of all, those words were written by a very liberal writer in 1994,"

Whatever. Are you saying that his conclusion is incorrect? That his interpretation of the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall is wrong?

Then by all means, please correct this "very liberal writer".

"The authority, therefore, given to the supreme court, by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States, to issue writs of mandamus to public officers, appears not to be warranted by the constitution; and it becomes necessary to inquire whether a jurisdiction, so conferred, can be exercised."
-- Marbury v Madison