Free Republic

In part 1 of this series, I asked one very simple question: Are progressives telling the truth about Marbury? In part 2, I examined the gap between the activist cases of the early-mid 1900s and the 1803 ruling. In part 3, the negative and positive aspects of how the Marbury ruling functioned were examined. Here in part 4, we will look at the constitution and look at the judiciary act. Since we know that progressives don't tell the truth about anything, then we have to start from square one. Why this is important, is progressives have long linked judicial activism...

In part 1 of this series, I asked one very simple question: "Are progressives telling the truth about Marbury?" In part 2, I examined the gap between the activist cases of the early-mid 1900s and the 1803 ruling. Here in part 3, the negative and positive aspects are examined. The negative power to say something is unconstitutional is clearly a different animal than the positive power of cooking up whole new legislation. It is not uncommon to read or hear judicial review cast as a veto or a nullification - a negative - and with a view on Marbury veto...

In part 1 of this series, I asked one very simple question: "Are progressives telling the truth about Marbury?" Since we know that progressives don't tell the truth about anything, then we have to start from square one. Why this is important, is progressives have long linked judicial activism to Marbury as the home of every scheme they've devised, but the more I look into it, the less I can see this is true. And if Marbury is not the source of the problem, then we need to identify the real cause. You don't stop cancers with flu medicines and...

Progressives claim that judicial activism was born with John Marshall's most well know ruling. But we all know that progressives don't tell the truth. So then what actually is Marbury all about, and what are its true results? Since progressives are not honest, where did judicial activism truely get established? What is the difference between judicial activism and judicial review?

I've been talking to some people on fb and someone mentioned Marbury v. Madison. I know nothing about it. But, what I'm hearing is this. Marbury v. Madison was a huge fight where the concept of judicial review was established for the first time. Jefferson and Madison were apoplectic at the thought that the Supreme Court could be able to strike down laws as unconstitutional. So is this what Obama is going to try to use? It doesn't make sense to me. If the Supremes can't strike down an unconstitutional law, what good are they? They can't keep a run...

The Montana House has overwhelmingly endorsed a plan to disregard the federal law protecting endangered and threatened species. Republicans enthused by Gov. Brian Schweitzer's recent tough talk on wolves led a 61-39 vote Saturday to nullify the federal Endangered Species Act in Montana. Tea party politics in the Legislature have spawned increasing belief in an 18th-century doctrine that purported to give states the ultimate say in constitutional matters...

You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is "boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem, '' and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has...

The Marbury MythJohn Marshall’s famous decision does not support judicial supremacy.  ‘We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the Court says it is.” These famous words of future Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes have become a cliché for judicial supremacy — the idea that the Supreme Court is the ultimate, exclusive interpreter of the Constitution, having the final word on all matters pertaining to its meaning. And almost everyone now believes that judicial supremacy is based on Marbury v. Madison, decided by the Court in 1803. Marbury’s contemporary influence has been graphically demonstrated in recent hearings on...

This is a suit that has been in and out of SCOTUS and is back within it once again as Marbury was violated in my unique case and as I have been suing since April of 2007 to stop what is happening in our nation. Currently I have a case to be conferenced on December 5th, 2008. It is In Re Susan 08-6622; attached to it as if it has never been heard is the previous case, In Re Susan 07-9804. A third action is also present as I filed an application for a stay as the solicitor genral failed...

September 14, 2007 -- The former Knick intern whose sordid sex encounter with hoops star Stephon Marbury was laid bare in federal court this week has agreed to take one for the team. Lawyers representing Madison Square Garden plan to call Kathleen Decker, 24, to give her version of a conversation with former Knick executive Anucha Browne Sanders about the co-ed's racy romp in the star point guard's truck, sources said. Marbury admitted in Manhattan federal court on Wednesday that he scored with the intern in April 2005 after brashly asking her, "Are you going to get in the truck?"...

Perhaps judicial review wasn't such a great idea after all. In Marbury v. Madison (1803), Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall assumed the power of judicial review over acts of the legislature. According to Marshall, the Constitution vested in the Supreme Court the ability to overturn legitimately enacted laws if those laws conflicted with the Constitution itself. It is anything but clear that the Constitution meant to create the power of judicial review. Marshall's opinion is full of holes, both textual and logical. As Judge Learned Hand stated, Marshall's opinion "will not bear scrutiny." Professor Alexander Bickel of Yale University...

THERE IS no vacancy on the Supreme Court, but the battle over the next nominee has already begun. Hollywood's favorite group, People for the American Way, is bragging about its new war room, equipped with dozens of computers and scores of staffers to conduct opposition research on President Bush's presumed nominees and network with grassroots organizations. Other liberal groups are conducting polling and raising funds for paid television advertising. Conservatives must prepare for this fight, but in a way that is smarter and different from the past. The left's approach will be to smear the candidate, whomever he or she...

THERE IS no vacancy on the Supreme Court, but the battle over the next nominee has already begun. Hollywood's favorite group, People for the American Way, is bragging about its new war room, equipped with dozens of computers and scores of staffers to conduct opposition research on President Bush's presumed nominees and network with grassroots organizations. Other liberal groups are conducting polling and raising funds for paid television advertising. Conservatives must prepare for this fight, but in a way that is smarter and different from the past. The left's approach will be to smear the candidate, whomever he or she...

BOSTON Two hundred years ago today Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Marbury v. Madison. As a kindness to Justice Samuel Chase, who was ill, he announced the decision in the Capitol Hill rooming house where most of the justices lived. In that humble setting Marshall and his colleagues established the great principle that judges have the power to declare acts of Congress void because they conflict with the Constitution. After 200 years Americans are so accustomed to judges having the last word that alternatives seem unthinkable. We rely on the...