As Mr. Justice Scalia has noted, the Constitution nowhere grants the high court the final and exclusive power of constitutional review (the power to 'say what the Constitution is').
Nor does Marshall. I agree with Marshall & Scalia. You're imagining that I do not. Silly you.
Your imagination is at work again, since Mr. Justice Marshall placed no such limits on the authority he claimed for the court.
You can't quote Marshall writing anything like that in Marbury.
--- I agree with Marshall & Scalia.
A bit tough to do, since they do not appear to agree with each other: Mr. Justice Marshall tended to expand the court's authority.
Marshall and Scalia agree, the Constitution " nowhere grants the high court the final and exclusive power of constitutional review." -- Read Marbury for the proof as to Marshalls opinion.
As I stated, "Mr. Justice Marshall placed no... limits on the authority he claimed for the court."
You are wrong. He acknowledged limits. Read Marbury.
I certainly can not quote something (limits on the high court's authority) that he failed to even mention.
Exactly, he never claimed 'the high court has final and exclusive power of constitutional review', or anything of the sort. Thus -- your pitiful straw man claim collapses.
You claim (in Post #257) to agree with "Thomas Jefferson and James Madison... that the States, not the federal courts, have the ultimate power to interpret the Constitution - to 'say what the Constitution is'" – "in the sense that it is the People in the States that actually wield that power." Tell us: where, precisely, in Mr. Justice Marshall's opinion does he recognize "that the States, not the federal courts, have the ultimate power to interpret the Constitution?
From post #257: His [Marshalls] comments have been understood for over 200 years by everyone that is rational about the issue.
Actually, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison stated that the States, not the federal courts, have the ultimate power to interpret the Constitution - to 'say what the Constitution is.'
I agree, in the sense that it is the People in the States that actually wield that power.
Tell us: where, precisely, in Mr. Justice Marshall's opinion does he recognize "that the States, not the federal courts, have the ultimate power to interpret the Constitution?
He tells us that the People wield that power, here:
" --- The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest.
It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.
That the people have an original right to establish for their future government, such principles, as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected.
The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated.
The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental.
And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent. --- "
You really should try to understand Marshall's words in Marbury, Galt. -- The above are some of his best.
Actually, since Mr. Justice Marshall claimed the right to “say what the law is,” and did not explicitly recognize any limitation on that right except the same law he claimed the power to interpret, my criticism stands. “You really should try to understand Marshall's words in Marbury.” And my argument, BTW, is not a ‘straw man’ argument – perhaps you should do a little additional ‘remedial reading’...
;>)
Sorry, sport, but “an original right to establish” is not the same as the ‘right to review.’ Try again...
;>)