Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Posted on 12/14/2004 3:30:28 PM PST by Ed Current
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Don't confuse the zealous advocacy of an arguing lawyer with the passion of a partisan. Hamilton also said the Bank of the U.S. was just hunky-dory, and the federal government should pay all the states' debts. No strict constructionist, he.
While standing barefoot on wet grass.
Why should it be overturned if the decision in the case is largely misunderstood?
?
Coleus,Bump.
"If I recall correctly, it was Hamilton, defending a loyalist in New York immediately after the Revolutionary War, who first argued that his client's guilt or innocence under the law which he was being charged was irrelevant because the law itself was unjust. Hamilton won the case. And that was several years prior to the Constitution."
All I'm saying is that Hamilton would have made that argument regardless of the law to which he was subject, and he was not for the Constitution so much as a strong federal government, period. I apologize for the confusion regarding your point--for some reason, in my sleep-deprived state I thought you were pointing to Hamilton as some sort of Constitutional advocate, where upon rereading seems you were just pointing out that jury nullification was around pre-Constitution.
cpforlife.org,Bump.
I've read the oral arguments in the upcoming Raisch case, and the government's lawyers are arguing that there can be no "as applied challenge" to Commerce Clause legislation. The courts can't very well review something no one can bring a case against.
Bump for later.
Like I said when I posted that, I was saving the article to read later. But, if the people misunderstanding the decision are judges who are in power, it's imperative that they be made to understand it so that the damage doesn't continue as it has.
Great post. Bookmarked.
</U>
Marshall wrote that the Supremacy Clause:
--- "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."
And the clause itself goes on to require that all legislative, executive, and judicial officers, both of the United States government and of the governments of the states, "be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution" . . .
What more need be said?
Bump for later reading.
--- "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."
And the clause itself goes on to require that all legislative, executive, and judicial officers, both of the United States government and of the governments of the states, "be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution" . . .
What more need be said?
I had no idea Marbury was so...deep!
I was thinking the same thing as you when I saw the headline!
marking
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.