[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?

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

Should read

"And am I the one who acted arrogently or was it the court?"

Humm. Something apparently went terribly wrong in spellcheck.

[tpaine]

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.

Common Tator


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Pete from Shawnee Mission:

"-- Now, Marbury is the law of the land, --"


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Marbury is not the "law of the land"..

Marbury is an accepted opinion by Marshall; -- and neither Madison or Jefferson disagreed in principle with its conclusion:

"-- 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. --"


Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Address:http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm



Notice that Marshall ends by saying: "-- that COURTS, as well as OTHER DEPARTMENTS, are bound by that instrument. --"

The constitutions 'arbiter' is the individual sworn to defend its principles, not the supreme court.

-- Where in Marbury does Marshall declare the Court to be the "FINAL ARBITER"?
-- He does not.. -- Marshall quite clearly states that judges too are bound by the Constitution:

"-- From these, and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature. Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support! ------
---- Why does a Judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? --"


Simply put, those who oppose the balance of power inherent in our Constitution deliberately misread Marbury; -- in order to contend that Court opinions that defend individual liberties are power grabs by so-called "FINAL ARBITERS".