[Dr. Sivana]

No you didn't. You just laughably asserted it was unconstitutional.

“I don’t think you can consider something the supreme court decides as unconstitutional.”

If I can assert it, then I can consider it. The fact is that I cited three Supreme Court decisions that run counter to the Constitution. In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, it was found unconstitutional (9-0) with no pertinent amendments in between. If we follow the Constitution and its meaning, and not the whims of men, either Plessy or Brown was unconstitutional.

NOWHERE in the Constitution is judicial review asserted. It was created outside of the Constitution by Justice Marshall.

The Oath that every president takes is to uphold the Constitution, not the Supreme Court's rulings, which may well be unconstitutional.

I noticed you completely ignored my statement of the bottom line of YOUR argument, that if SCOTUS came out tomorrow and declared that one of the justices was the Emperor, and that any attemptes to impeach would be unconstitutional, that this would also be Constitutional. That might work in Oliver Wendell Holmes' warped mind, and it might be the end game of what Justice Marshall had in mind, but it is NOT in the Constitution. A Constitutionalist is NOT a legal positivist.

[EternalVigilance]

NOWHERE in the Constitution is judicial review asserted.

No, it is not.

It was created outside of the Constitution by Justice Marshall.

No it wasn't. Marbury vs. Madison explicitly asserts absolute Constitutional supremacy over all departments, not judicial supremacy.

Go read it again.

Here's the summation:

"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."