justshutupandtakeit wrote:
It is amusing to find that you believe throwing up a bunch of quotes is an argument. It isn't.
____________________________________
It is amusing to see you unable to defend your position of post #219:
______________________________________
Marshall never said government officials can ignore laws they consider "repugnant" nor has any other rational person.
Each and every individual does not have the option of deciding which laws are acceptable the him. There are many I would consider "repugnant" and would like to ignore but I don't have that freedom.
219 justakeit
_____________________________________
Marshall's main point in Marbury is that any law, made at any level of fed, state or local government -- or any court ruling on a law, -- is null and void if it does not conform to the US Constitutions principles.
-- And that all judges & officials at any level are honor bound by their oaths of office to reject such repugnant laws, refuse to enforce them, or work to repeal them.
Obviously this is not being done, and it is a failure of our political system, not one of our Constitution .. 211
Marbury v. Madison
Address:http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Marbury/
______________________________________
Here above is what I wrote about
Marbury, and what Marshall wrote.
Your imaginings about what I wrote are ludicrous, --- and your ignorance of Marshall's main point is evident to anyone that reads the decision.
224
Marshall never said laws can be ignored because YOU think they are unconstitutional. You CAN challenge them in court. What part of this are you going to ape and post as response?