From: "John D.Wentzky" 

"No One"  wrote in message
news:87zm647a0e.fsf{at}nospam.pacbell.net...
> "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¡Ä?s
>> >        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.

You hate the 'E' in E pluribus Unum, huh?

> It was instead really about judicial review, as the article I quoted
> explicitly
> stated.

But, if you knew why those non-roevwade courts ruled as they did maybe you
would show me that you understand the constitution and its proper
application.

>> > 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?

A comeback like that shows me you are for criminals.

>> 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.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if they got together and agreed to stop
taxing the people of the USA.
Maybe they would keep the Social Security tax. The people could be
presented with a total elimination of all taxes other than the FICA tax.
All income would be taxed above $24,000 per year per individual.

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag