From: "John D.Wentzky" 

"No One"  wrote in message
news:87wt18a4eg.fsf{at}nospam.pacbell.net...
> "John D.Wentzky"  writes:
>
>> "No One"  wrote in message
>> news:87odmkiq20.fsf{at}nospam.pacbell.net...
>> > "John D.Wentzky"
 writes:
>> >
>> >> "No One"  wrote
in message
>> >> news:87k5x81zdp.fsf{at}nospam.pacbell.net...
>> >> > "John D.Wentzky"
 writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "No One"
 wrote in message
>> >> >> news:87fy7xiaj4.fsf{at}nospam.pacbell.net...
>> >> >> > "John D.Wentzky"
 writes:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> "thomas p."
 wrote in message
>> >> >> >>
news:1174542611.921031.259270{at}l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> >> > On 21 Mar., 18:23, "John
D.Wentzky"
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > And your point would be?  Nobody
argued that they agreed with
>> >> >> >> > every
>> >> >> >> > decision the court makes, only
that the court has the right to
>> >> >> >> > determine the constitutionality of
laws in cases brought
>> >> >> >> > before
>> >> >> >> > it.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> They can only determine something to be
unconstitutional if it
>> >> >> >> violates the Constitution.  Check the
Separation of powers
>> >> >> >> requirement that was violated by the
USSC in 1973 in roevwade.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Separation of powers" does not
mean "Wentzky agrees with the
>> >> >> > decision."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It means the USSC had no authority to override
Texas' or any other
>> >> >> State's
>> >> >> non-roevwade position.
>> >> >
>> >> > "Separation of powers" means no such thing.
>> >>
>> >> RoeVWade-speak?
>> >
>> > 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. Bonham¡Çs
>        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.

>> >  As "The Chief Instigator" pointed
>> > out, the issue was settled 200 or so years ago.
>>
>> It wasn't settled by a roevwade court.
>> And, roevwade isn't settled.
>
> 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.
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?

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag