Replies

The SCOTUS, a body which rules arbitrarily according to its own whims

Where is this prohibited in the Constitution? Answer: It isn't.

Of course not. I never said otherwise. I simply called it what it is.

Where in the Constitution is the SCOTUS granted its power as final arbiter of the Constitution's meaning? Answer: Nowhere. John Marshall simply seized that power when the opportunity presented itself. The Constitution died that day.

You may comfort yourself that we aren't (yet) under the bootheel of "a totalitarian, communist state", if you like. It matters little. What we are under is the arbitrary rule-at-whim tyranny of the completely unaccountable. That it could get worse (and probably will), and that other countries have (had) it worse, is a discussion of degree, not kind.

"Stroke of the pen, law of the land", applies to more than just the imperial presidency.

Article 3 gives the SCOTUS that power. That was well understood at the time, by proponents and opponents of the Constitition. In fact, it was one of the strongest arguments AGAINST the Constitution.

See Brutus' 11th and 12th essays. For the pro side, see Federalist...IIRC it's 78. Hamilton.

-- Where in the Constitution is the SCOTUS granted its power as final arbiter of the Constitution's meaning? Answer: Nowhere. John Marshall simply seized that power when the opportunity presented itself. The Constitution died that day. --

FWIW, not only is Marbury v. Madison the most cited case, it is also the most often incorrectly construed case.

Marshall's ultimate conclusion in Marbury v. Madison was that SCOTUS was powerless to render the remedy sought; and this in spite of a law. The rationale for finding SCOTUS powerless was that the court was bound to follow the superior law, the constitution, when a law and the constitution are at odds.