Replies

Wow! What a compelling argument . . . not. It's a dodge.

Do you think the fact that the Court has refrained from curbing its own power by returning to its Constitutional charter is an unexpected phenomenon? LOL! I guess you never learned the old adage from Lord Acton: "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Or . . . more earthy but equally accurate, allowing the foxes to watch the hen house.

I guess it's too much to hope that you might actually read Newt's white paper, or for that matter the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Have you even read Marbury v. Madison and the contemporary analyses? Did you know that Marbury was a political decision more than a legal decision, that Marshall, who wrote the opinion was directly involved in the act which spurred the case, that he was Secretary of State in the Adams Administration whose actions led to the case over which he presided? Opinions are nice, but informed opinions are far preferable.

Here's an easy one. Show me where in the Constitution, the concept of judicial review is written. Show me the basis for Marbury v. Madison in the Constitution. You're so certain it's true, it should be a simple thing to provide its provenance.

While the length of time a ruling is upheld holds sway, sometimes considerable sway, over the court and stare decisis, by itself it in no way proves constitutionality. Wickard v. Filburn has been the law of the land for nigh on 70 years, but it remains one of the most egregious and urgently needed to be overturned decisions the Court has ever made. Roe v. Wade has now been the law of the land for almost 40 years. Is that now sacrosanct? Time means nothing when it comes to constitutionality, only on the willingness of Justices to strike down said ruling.

So yes, from my reading of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and other sources, both recent and historical, I do "personally feel [and know] that it is unconstitutional."

. . . and yes, "I really think that's a good argument."

Here's another old adage from one of our Founding Fathers: "Right is right, even if everyone is against it and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it.

“It’s a dodge.” Not really but if it is it’s a darn good one.

Every President since Jefferson thinks that last one didn’t do it quite right. The Executive Branch through the Legislative Branch, if they wanted, could appoint judges to overturn M v. M. They haven’t because the vast majority accept that the USSC is the final arbiter of constitutionality. This is one of many reasons why the Constitutional Convention decided the court should be appointed and not elected. They weren’t appointed so they could rule without accountability. They were appointed so that they would be weak and deferential to the other two branches.