[Common Tator]

While he did not state his view, I do not think that he agrees that the Supremes are the only and final arbiter of the constitution.

It all goes back to the Jefferson Administration and Madison Vs Marbury decided in 1803.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ruled that just because John Madison (the Madison in Madison Vs Marbury) wrote the Constitution didn't mean he knew what it meant.

Neither Madison (then Secretary of State) who wrote the constitution or Jefferson (then president) who wrote the declaration of independence disputed Chief Justice John Marshalls ruling that the SUPREME COURT WAS THE FINAL ABRITOR of what what the words in the Constitution mean.

If you had only been there to tell Madison, Jefferson, and Marshall they were all wrong, I'll bet things would have been a lot different.

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

"He who does not speak out is assumed to consent..."

Which is the reason that it is assumed that they agreed with the chief Justice.

"just because John Madison (the Madison in Madison Vs Marbury) wrote the Constitution didn't mean he knew what it meant"

Look at the logic here. Certain men write a document that forms the basis of a government. Later, other men come along and claim that they, on the basis of the power granted to them by that same document are better able to interpret the meaning and intention of the document than the men who actually wrote the document that granted them the very power under which they act.

Now, Marbury is the law of the land, unless Congress passes a law that says Judges are not the final arbiters and the president supports them, or/and decides to rise up and sack the entire supreme court a. But does the argument of the Chief Justice make sense that they knew better than the men who wrote the document? And am I the one who acted urogenital or was it the court?

[Conservative Goddess]

That would be JAMES, not John, MADISON........