Golden Valley [AZ] man accused in machine gun conspiracy (illegal NFA mfg)

-- the significant of Marbury is that is was the driving case in which SCOTUS granted iftelf the authority to review laws, and at it's choosing, invalidate such a law by declaring said law "unconstitutional." --

SCOTUS authority, according to Marshall (in Marbury v. Madison) is obtained from, and limited by, the constitution. So "granted itself authority to review laws" is a false statement of fact.

You should demand a rebate from your law school. By your account, they taught you to adopt falsehoods as fact.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ...
(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

US Constitution, Article III

Another point about Marbury v. Madison that you fail to acknowledge, is that the case was decided on grounds of jurisdiction. Marshall concluded that SCOTUS lacked authority, under the limited grant of power to SCOTUS by the constitution, to grant the relief prayed for by the plaintiff.

The case is an example of SCOTUS limiting itself to the terms of the constitution, and not, as you cast it, an example of SCOTUS reaching for powers not granted to it.

Congress was attempting to expand the jurisdiction of SCOTUS beyond the limits established by the Constitution. Marshal said the Congressional grant of power was not authorized by the constitution. He was right. See constitution for grant of original jurisdiction.

Marshall took awhile to get to the point, but the parts I excerpted above are not difficult, doublespeak, or any other form of "hiding the rationale."

Your ad hominem tactic is a sign of weakness, at best.

You're an idiot if you expect the Tenth Amendment to be restored at the expense of the New Deal Commerce Clause. Did you not read the Raich decision? Scalia - along with Stevens, Breyer, Souter, Kennedy and Ginsburg - endorsed the expansive view and then some:

...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.

Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.

--J. Scalia, concurring in Raich

______________________________________

Clarence Thomas got it right in his dissent:

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana.

If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything, and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

--J. Thomas, dissenting in Raich

The legitimacy of the judiciary is measured by its ability to obtain coercive power from the other branches.

We do live in a constitutional republic. Without the constitution, and what your are suggesting, we would only have the trappings of a republic where "might makes right". Legitimacy is dependent on adherence to the constitution and it is not synonymous with superior forces. Regardless our government doesn't even have close to superior forces over the people. They have only done what we have allowed them to do and we need to start holding them to the constitutional standard. Not the one they make up on the fly but the written one.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.