EVERY law passed by Congress is constitutional until the Court rules otherwise. It can be lawfully ignored only when there is a judicial order staying its operation.
219 posted on 03/04/2005 1:20:06 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit
justshutupandtakeit wrote:
Marbury does not instruct officials to ignore laws they don't wish to obey. It states a truth but does not pretend that Moe, Larry and Curly get to decide upon constitutionality.
______________________________________
From Marbury:
--- The constitution declares "that no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."
If, however, such a bill should he passed and a person should be prosecuted under it; must the court condemn to death those victims whom the constitution endeavors to preserve?
"No person," says the constitution, "shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."
Here the language of the constitution is addressed especially to the courts.
It prescribes directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?
From these, and many other selections which might be made, 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.
Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it?
This oath certainly applies in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!
The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject.
It is in these words: "I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as, according to the best of my abilities and understanding agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States."
Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.
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.
____________________________
Read Marshall's words that make yours look foolish.
229 P_A_I
______________________________________
How odd that you would put the opinion that the Court is supreme over the Constitution in my mouth when there is not a shred of evidence to support such a conclusion.
I have never said anything other than that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and NOTHING is superior to it.
266 justtakeit
It is amusing to find that you believe throwing up a bunch of quotes is an argument. It isn't.