From: No One 

"John D.Wentzky"  writes:


> >> > No, "Marbury v. Madison" speak.
> >>
> >> Are you always so easily detected when you participate in suberfuge.
> >
> > Are you always so ignorant of U.S. history?
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison>
> >
> >
> >        The power of judicial review is often thought to have been
> >        created in Marbury but the general idea has ancient roots. The
> >        idea that courts could nullify statutes probably has its roots
> >        in Chief Justice Edward Coke's 1610 opinion in Dr. Bonhamâ¡Äçs
> >        Case, 8 Co. Rep. 107a. That decision arose under a statute of
> >        Parliament enabling the London College of Physicians to levy
> >        fines against anyone who violated their rules. The College
> >        accused a doctor of practicing without a license and fined him
> >        accordingly. Coke found that their statutory powers violated
> >        "common right or reason" because "no person
should be a judge
> >        in his own case."[7] Sir Edward Coke Sir Edward Coke
>
> In the USA we call such things anti-trust, protectionism, conflict of
> interest, and anti-competitiveness in the market which leads to higher
> costs.
> Allowing self-regulation in business violates the free hand of economics.
>
> >        The idea that courts could declare statutes void waxed and
> >        then waned in England, but it was well known in the American
> >        colonies and in the bars of young states, where Coke's books
> >        were very influential. The doctrine was specifically enshrined
> >        in some state constitutions, and by 1803 it had been employed
> >        in both State and Federal courts in actions dealing with state
> >        statutes.[8][9]
> >
> >        Some legal scholars argue that the concept of judicial review
> >        and the legal basis for it predate the case, and that Marbury
> >        merely formalized it. For example, Saikrishna Prakash and John
> >        Yoo argue that during the ratification of the Constitution,
> >        "[N]o scholar to date has identified even one participant in
> >        the ratification fight who argued that the Constitution did
> >        not authorize judicial review of Federal statutes. This
> >        silence in the face of the numerous comments on the other side
> >        is revealing."[10]
> >
> >        However, it is important to note that nothing in the text of
> >        the Constitution explicitly authorized the power of judicial
> >        review, despite persistent fears voiced by Anti-federalists
> >        over the power of the new Federal court system.
> >
> >        The concept was also laid out by Hamilton in Federalist
> >        No. 78:
> >                If it be said that the legislative body are themselves
> >                the constitutional judges of their own powers, and
> >                that the construction they put upon them is conclusive
> >                upon the other departments, it may be answered, that
> >                this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is
> >                not to be collected from any particular provisions in
> >                the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed,
> >                that the Constitution could intend to enable the
> >                representatives of the people to substitute their will
> >                to that of their constituents. It is far more rational
> >                to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an
> >                intermediate body between the people and the
> >                legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the
> >                latter within the limits assigned to their
> >                authority. The interpretation of the laws is the
> >                proper and peculiar province of the courts. A
> >                constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the
> >                judges, as a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs
> >                to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the
> >                meaning of any particular act proceeding from the
> >                legislative body. If there should happen to be an
> >                irreconcilable variance between the two, that which
> >                has the superior obligation and validity ought, of
> >                course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the
> >                Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the
> >                intention of the people to the intention of their
> >                agents.
> >
> > Now, you were saying?
>
> Marbury vs Madison isn't a market regulation case.  There is no
> Constitutional provision for insubordination.  That is why Marbury
> was fired, and why he was NOT rehired.  That is why he didn't get to
> keep the handout he had received under another President.  Madison
> did NOT need Marbury as a JotP.

That was not the important issue the case decided. It was instead really
about judicial review, as the article I quoted explicitly stated.
> >
> > You were talking about the ability of the Supreme Court to declare
> > state laws unconstitutional.
>
> What ability?
> There is no way for the USSC to declare state laws unconstitutional without
> a constitutional provision that clearly reserves such power to the federal
> government.

What is it about "judicial review" that you do not understand?

> Maybe we could amend the Constitution and rescind the power of Congress to
> levy taxes upon the people of the USA.
> Care to put it up to a vote of the people?

Read up on the procedure for amending the U.S. Constitution to see how
silly your request is.

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag