I suggest you listen to Mark Levin. If he hasn’t covered this yet I’m sure he will before it is over.
Obama will simply use his executive "pen" to dictate.
Obama will simply use his executive "pen" to dictate.
Link to Marbury vs Madison
Yes, the Founders really did not think about the possibility that the S.Ct. might throw out a law as unconstitutional. Marbury v. Madison established that point, and also established the point that it’s the S.Ct. that has the final say on issues of Constitutionality.
I would not say though that it seems clear. The Constitution itself does not say that, and a whole lot of mischief has been done with that principle over the years. Since it’s a well-established part of US law, though, there is no one who can legitimately claim that the S.Ct. does not have the power to declare it unConstitutional. And I don’t think that Obama is challenging it on those grounds.
Yet there is a problem with Marbury v. Madison, and that is that it depends upon the willingness of the President and the Congress to accede to the Court’s ruling. If both of them refused to go along, it would probably cause a Constitutional crisis.
Facts of the Case
The case began on March 2, 1801, when an obscure Federalist, William Marbury, was designated as a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. Marbury and several others were appointed to government posts created by Congress in the last days of John Adams's presidency, but these last-minute appointments were never fully finalized. The disgruntled appointees invoked an act of Congress and sued for their jobs in the Supreme Court. (Justices William Cushing and Alfred Moore did not participate.)
Question
Is Marbury entitled to his appointment? Is his lawsuit the correct way to get it? And, is the Supreme Court the place for Marbury to get the relief he requests?
Conclusion
Decision: 6 votes for Madison, 0 vote(s) against Legal provision: Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 Yes; yes; and it depends. The justices held, through Marshall's forceful argument, that on the last issue the Constitution was "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation" and that "an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void." In other words, when the Constitution--the nation's highest law--conflicts with an act of the legislature, that act is invalid. This case establishes the Supreme Court's power of judicial review.
1. Where the constitution and a statute are in conflict, one or the other has to control the outcome. CJ Marshall said the Constitution had to prevail in such a case.
2. The constitution gives SCOTUS certain original jurisdiction. SCOTUS can only take an original dispute, if it is one of the categories enumerated in the constitution. This issue was not in one of the areas that the constitution provides SCOTUS with jurisdiction. Lacking jurisdiction, the court could not hear or decide the case.
Marbury v. Madison is about the LIMITED power of the Court.
But, as is their wont, subsequent and lower courts have bastardized what the case really stands for, in order to flip it on its head and make it stand for the proposition that the court is all powerful and the final say. Neither those propositions is true, either. SCOTUS is not all powerful, and it does not have the final say.
I’m an atty (retired) and argued many a Constitutional issue before SCOTUS and other appellate courts. Marbury v. Madison is, perhaps, the must fundamental case in American Jurisprudence. And, yes, MANY, including Jefferson, were apoplectic that the Court decided that it’s job was to determine the Constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. While judicial review had been around for centuries, this was the first time SCOTUS dealt with the concept.
But Marbury is SO well settled that it is without issue. Regardless of who wants to do what, SCOTUS will get the final say or you have a major Constitutional crisis. We almost had one with the Nixon tapes but Nixon relented.
Obama railing against SCOTUS is meaningless. It would have to be he (the Executive Branch) refusing to follow the ruling. That has just never happened and it won’t now.
I am certain others can explain this better than I . But I have a copy of Marbury v.Madison from constitution.org @www.constitution.org/ussc/005-137a.htm And a copy of the US Constitution-Article III of which describes the general powers of the Judicial branch . The Federalist Papers , Madison, Hamilton,and Jay,Penguin Classic has several articles where the Judiciary was discussed. It was intended to be as Montesquieu described the Judicial branch “the weakest branch—having no power to enforce law-and no power to make law. And there is that excellent letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Justice William Johnson June 12,1823—
Thomas Jefferson Writings Library of America Merrill D.Peterson Editor, p.1469 1477. In short—best as I can tell
the big fight was between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. Madison was a Federalist. Jefferson and anti-Federalist.John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice by John Adams John Marshall was a Federalist. Now before he left Office —after Jefferson was elected but before he was sworn in.... Adams made an appointment and expected Jefferson honor it. Jefferson believed the Constitution prohibits writs of mandamus.(as it seems do) and Marshall in writing
Marbury v. Madison was very clever. Had Marbury v. Madison been given the consideration it ought to have received Marbury v. Madison ought to have been overturned. But the Federalist had the power/support and the Courts have enjoyed the power of Judicial review since 1803 because nobody with any power wanted it overturned. I hope I didn’t mess it up for anybody.
The Court never laid claim to any legitimate power to overturn laws, or amend constitutions, or make laws.
They simply asserted, rightfully, that they had a sworn obligation to follow the Constitution, just like those who are officers in the other branches, and to make their decisions accordingly. That's it.
Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support! The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: 'I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.' Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him. If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime. It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank. Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
"From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.
The USSC was empowered to hear disputes between different states,case with foreign nations,and to review appeals from lower federal courts. Judicial review was something John Marshall pulled out of his a*s.
And the problem is, to paraphrase, Orwell, Marsall made one branch of government more equal than others.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm
There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.
Here is a good article from the Claremont Review of Books
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1183/article_detail.asp
Greta has a couple of posts up about it.
It is the Supremes’ job on the constitionality or unconstitutionality of laws.
So of course Obama want’s us to believe otherwise. That’s what I supsect he ‘professed’ while he was a Constitutional ‘scholar’ as some called him...
And I shall. But, not all that long ago, even we lay people were taught about Marbury vs. Madison in elementary school. It was considered important.
At least you've found a place where you'd hear about it eventually and grasp its importance.
The courts have overturned cases before, you just haven’t heard about it...
Chapter 4 of the TRUTH!
The TRUTH About Income!
In the last chapter we learned the truth about income tax. In this chapter we will learn the truth about the real definition of income itself! Nowhere in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) is income defined.
So the big question becomes, what IS income? And did you have any that was taxable?
The word “income” is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code, as the court stated in U.S. v. Ballard 535 F.2d 400 at 404, but the Supreme Court has defined it for us in numerous cases.
Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert 231 U.S. 399 (1913) “As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court has decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to population, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation, . . .”
“As to what should be deemed “income” within the meaning of Sec. 38, it of course need not be such an income as would have been taxable as such, for at that time (the 16th amendment not having been as yet ratified) income was not taxable as such by Congress without apportionment according to population, and this tax was not apportioned. Evidently Congress adopted the income as the measure of the tax to be imposed with the respect to the doing of business in corporate form because it desired that the excise should be imposed, approximately at least, with regard to the amount of benefit presumably derived by such corporations from the current operations of the government.”
The Supreme Court defines “income tax”, as an excise tax “imposed with respect to the doing of business in corporate form”. If you are not engaged in any corporate activities then you are not liable for an “excise income tax.” This Supreme Court decision also states that Congress cannot tax an individual’s income directly. All direct taxes must be imposed on the states with apportionment. U.S. Constitution Art. 1 Sect 2. Cl. 3 and Sect 9 Cl. 4.
The above case applies to corporations, so if you are not a corporation, then the Corporation Excise tax does not apply to you. The important thing here is the clarification that the income tax is an excise tax, imposed upon the doing of business in corporate form. An the tax is determined by how much income is received. But WHAT is income? The Supreme Court again tells us:
Eisner vs. Macomber 252 U.S. 189 pg 205 (1920) The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted. In Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust it was held that taxes upon rents and profits of real estate and upon returns from investments of personal property were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which the income arose, imposed by reason of ownership; and that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the states according to population, as required by Art 1 Sect. 2 Cl. 3 and Sect. 9 Cl. 4 of the original Constitution.
Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitations upon the taxing power of Congress thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted: . . . As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which might otherwise exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. . . . it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not “income’, as the term is there used;
After examining dictionaries in common use we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation (Excise) Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert 231 US 399, 415; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co. 247 US 179, 185)
“Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined”, provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle case pp. 183, 185.
“Derived — from — capital”; — “the gain — derived — from — capital,” etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being “derived,” that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the Taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal; — that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description.
That Congress has power to tax stockholders upon their property interests in the stock of corporations is beyond question; and that such interests might be valued in view of the condition of the company, including its accumulated and undivided profits, is equally clear. But this would be taxation of property because of ownership, and hence would require apportionment under the provisions of the Constitution, is settled beyond peradventure by previous decisions of this court.
Clearly, the definition of corporate income means a gain or profit received from an excise taxed activity. But does this same definition apply to individual income tax? To the Supreme Court again:
Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka 255 U.S. 509 (1921) “It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word “income” has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe 247 U.S. 330, 335, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising under the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of “income” which was applied was adopted from Strattons’ Independence v. Howbert, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include “profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets,” there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court.”
The word “income” has the same meaning in ALL the income tax acts of Congress. That meaning has been declared to be corporate profits and gains and has been definitely settled by the Supreme Court. So, did you have income that is taxable? Did you have a gain or profit from a corporate activity? Remember that the income tax is an excise tax on the doing of business in a corporate capacity. That is the ONLY way that you can receive taxable income, as legally defined by the Supreme Court.
If you relied on these never overturned Supreme Court rulings in your beliefs, does your reliance on these plain rulings constitute a frivolous position? The IRS says it does!
So, if you had NO corporate income tax liability for this year, you had zero “income” as legally defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. A corporation is NOT taxed on ALL its income, from whatever source. It is only taxed on it’s profit. If that is the case then why are YOU taxed on ALL your income from whatever source? You are also allowed to deduct SOME expenses. Does that mean that if you work for a corporation and you exchange 40 hours of your labor for $600, that you had $600 of profit, minus deductions? If a corporation exchanges $600 for 40 hours of your labor, did they also have a profit? NO! They can claim ALL your labor as a deductible operating expense. So why is it that why you exchange one property (your labor) for another property ($600) that in that exchange, you had a profit and the corporation had a deduction? Why is it a profit for you but not for the corporation? The answer is that it is not a profit for EITHER of you! And therefore it is not taxable income, as defined by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has ruled:
Eisner vs. Macomber 252 U.S. 189 pg 205 (1920): “ The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted. . . .taxes upon rents and profits of real estate and upon returns from investments of personal property (labor) were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which the income arose, . . . that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the states”
The Supreme Court has plainly stated that an individual’s income cannot be taxed directly: But an individual’s income CAN be taxed with an excise tax, IF it was received in a corporate activity. More on this later.
Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert 231 U.S. 399 (1913) “As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law.
Corporate “income” (profits and gains) CAN be taxed with an excise tax, but the income itself is not taxed because it is property. Therefore income tax is not on income, it is on profits. It is not an income tax law, it is a profits tax law. Are you engaged in, or did you receive income in connection with, any corporate activities? Receipts received from labor or private investments are not corporate “income” and therefore do not fall within the legal definition of “income” as defined by the Supreme Court.
SUMMARY
“Income” is legally defined as a corporate gain of profit in the Internal Revenue Code. Nowhere is there any different definition.
The definition of income used in the Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909 is the same definition used in ALL the income tax statutes.
“Gross income” would then be the total income of a corporation, from all sources.
“Taxable income” would therefore be corporate gross income, minus allowable deductions. Also known as profit. If a corporation had no profit, then it had no taxable income. If you are an officer of a corporation, then you had individual income that is taxable.
Anytime the Internal Revenue Code mentions the word “income” it is talking about corporate income.
More info on this is in the chapter on the 16th Amendment.
http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Chap4.html