Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BCrago66
No, M & M is a fishy case. Marshall grabed power ...

What extra-constitutional remedy did he order?

2,402 posted on 03/20/2005 10:07:02 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2334 | View Replies ]


To: Cboldt

It's a long story, and I'm tired. But this was the 1st case in which the court decided, not just a particular dispute, but declared to power to void laws (or actions of the executive branch) if the court deemed them unconstitutional, i.e., the power of "judicial review." This is taken for granted today, and some would argue that it's always implicit in the fuction of the judiciary, but this was the 1st time in America the court declared explicity that it had that power. ("[I]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is...")

And what made Marshall the tricky bastard that he was is that he did it under the cover of judicial modesty, in the course of denying that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction in a particular matter.

So he ordered no extra-constitutional remedy. But he laid the foundation for the court making stuff up in the future, e.g., right to abortion, a commerce clause that gives Congress the power to do almost anything, etc.


2,484 posted on 03/20/2005 10:17:10 PM PST by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2402 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson