From: No One 

"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

        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?

> >  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.

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag