Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $25,130
29%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 29% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Keyword: marburyvmadison

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • By What Mechanism Can We Return the Supreme Court to Its Original Limited Role? (Vanity)

    07/04/2013 8:23:48 PM PDT · by dagogo redux · 101 replies
    7/4/13 | dagogo redux
    I listen to whatever I can in the way of talk radio when I drive around, and Mark Levin is the least unpalatable choice on the drive home from work each day. He was on one of his bulging-neck-vein rants the other day, this one about the history of the Supreme Court’s overstepping their limited Constitutional role over the past several centuries, leading us to the “judicial tyranny” we see now, which was never the intent of the Founders. He implied that the ultimate remedy was the restoration of the original intent of the Founders, rather than merely electing conservative...
  • Democrats Outraged as Grassley Calls Obama ‘Stupid’

    04/10/2012 12:36:35 AM PDT · by iowamark · 54 replies
    Newsmax ^ | 09 Apr 2012 | Martin Gould
    Democrats have hit back at veteran GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley for calling President Barack Obama “stupid” in a weekend Twitter message. “Ive know @ChuckGrassley a long time. I am saddened he would embarrass himself like today with his comments about the President,” Obama's campaign manager, Jim Messina, tweeted. Meanwhile White House senior adviser David Axelrod said, “Heads up, Sen. Grassley. I think a 6-year-old hijacked your account and is sending out foolish Tweets just to embarrass you!” ABC News reported. But the senior senator from Iowa was unrepentant. “In his Tweet on Saturday, Sen. Grassley said that it doesn’t speak...
  • Appeals court fires back at Obama's comments on health care case

    04/03/2012 2:10:13 PM PDT · by mwilli20 · 146 replies
    CBSNews ^ | April 3, 2012 3:42 PM | Jan Crawford
    ... a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law ...
  • WILL IT TAKE A REVOLUTION?

    03/31/2012 7:35:00 PM PDT · by SaveOurRepublicFromTyranny · 88 replies
    Canada Free Press ^ | March 31, 2012 | Douglas V. Gibbs
    We are told that it is up to the Supreme Court to determine what laws are constitutional, but that is hardly in line with the limiting principles offered by the U.S. Constitution. That power the courts claim to have is called Judicial Review, and it is addressed nowhere in the Constitution. In fact, the federal courts seized that power for themselves through an opinion written by Justice John Marshall in the Marbury v. Madison case of 1803. Yes, that’s right, the courts gave that power to themselves. By deciding if laws are constitutional, and since the Supreme Court is a...
  • An Open Letter to President Barack H. Obama, Constitutional Scholar [Excellent]

    04/03/2012 6:39:48 AM PDT · by upchuck · 27 replies
    America's Right ^ | April 2, 2012 | Jeff Schreiber
    Dear Mr. President, Supposedly, you are some sort of constitutional scholar. At the very least, you can read, you can write, and despite being merely some sort of guest lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, you once famously referred to yourself as a “Constitutional Law professor.”Ringing a bell so far, Mr. President? Great.While my Juris Doctor is from the Rutgers School of Law in Camden, New Jersey, and while Rutgers-Camden is hardly Harvard Law School, within the first three days of Constitutional Law class those who did not already know of and understand perhaps the single most important...
  • Montana House votes to nullify Endangered Species Act

    02/19/2011 6:56:54 PM PST · by george76 · 54 replies
    ap ^ | February 19, 2011
    The Montana House has overwhelmingly endorsed a plan to disregard the federal law protecting endangered and threatened species. Republicans enthused by Gov. Brian Schweitzer's recent tough talk on wolves led a 61-39 vote Saturday to nullify the federal Endangered Species Act in Montana. Tea party politics in the Legislature have spawned increasing belief in an 18th-century doctrine that purported to give states the ultimate say in constitutional matters...
  • Final Soluton to U.S. "Abortion Problem" is Clearly Laid Out in Contstitution Says Writer

    03/13/2006 4:20:42 PM PST · by NYer · 41 replies · 1,378+ views
    LifeSite ^ | March 13, 2006
    Final Soluton to U.S. "Abortion Problem" is Clearly Laid Out in Contstitution Says Writer FRONT ROYAL, Virginia, March 11, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Today's LifeSiteNews Special Report analyses the American Constitution and what is says about who has ultimate authority over U.S. laws concerning abortion. Rand Brown, a student at Christendom College in Front Royal Virginia states in his article that the final solution to the "Abortion Problem" lays "not where most pro-life Americans think it to be".Brown relates that Congress "can overthrow a Supreme Court ruling precisely because it, and not the Judiciary, is the voice of the American people....
  • Judicial Review: Time to dump Marbury v. Madison

    07/09/2005 3:15:41 PM PDT · by 1stFreedom · 308 replies · 3,091+ views
    TakeBackTheCourt.com ^ | 7/9/2005 | Ruben Obregon
    Lost in all the hoopla over potential nominees and "strict constructionists" is the battle over Judicial Review. Judicial review was "created" in Marbury v. Madison. Nowhere in the constitution are the Federal Courts granted Judicial Review. They simply assumed that power in Marbury v. Madison. Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld a lower court decision that threw out a federal ban on partial birth abortions since it did not provide a "health" exception. The problem is, the US Court of Appeals doesn't have the constitutional power to override Congress, yet it did. A "strict constructionist"...
  • Curbing Abuses of the Judicial Oligarchy

    03/23/2005 5:21:56 PM PST · by wagglebee · 47 replies · 906+ views
    NewsMax ^ | 3/24/05 | Wes Vernon
    The framers of the U.S. Constitution feared a judiciary that might abuse its power. But even most of them did not envision the judicial oligarchy that confronts Americans in this 21st century. In case after case, judges and "last word" Supreme Court justices have substituted their personal opinions for the clear meaning of the Constitution or the law. The courts have overreached on abortion, gay rights, affirmative action, the death penalty, bilingual education, immigration, enemy combatants, law school admissions, flag-burning, ordering local governments to raise taxes, limits on political speech, prayer and the Ten Commandments in the public square, seizure...
  • In Marbury vs Madison Jefferson Saw the Beginning of Judicial Tyranny

    03/22/2005 2:39:13 PM PST · by P_A_I · 35 replies · 4,762+ views
    In Marbury vs Madison Jefferson Saw the Beginning of Judicial Tyranny Early in his career Jefferson was concerned for the independence of the judiciary in order that it be strong and to prevent injustice. However, when the federalists focused their efforts on the transfer to Washington of the power reserved in the Constitution to the States, using the power that they had obtained in the judiciary, he began to view with alarm the subversion of the judiciary and its independence of the nation. To the prevention of their objective Jefferson devoted the rest of his life. The following quotations may...
  • Rush, I love ya, but you made a critical error Tuesday on Marbury v. Madison

    02/02/2005 9:43:24 PM PST · by cpforlife.org · 66 replies · 4,726+ views
    e-mail to Rush | 2-3-05
    Dear Rush, I’ve been listening to you since the first month you went on the air in New Orleans. You are an inspiration and my whole family loves you. In the last half of your first hour on Tuesday you were discussing how far out in left field the Federal Judiciary has gone in the last several decades. You discussed parts of the Scalia v Breyer debate and were hitting on all cylinders in the way that only Maha Rushie can. Then you proceeded to explain the history of the “source” of much of the judicial tyranny we suffer under...
  • THE IRREPRESSIBLE MYTH OF MARBURY

    12/14/2004 3:30:28 PM PST · by Ed Current · 49 replies · 4,313+ views
    NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW ^ | February 18, 2004 | Michael Paulsen
    CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY COLLOQUIUM SERIESNearly all of American constitutional law today rests on a myth. The myth, presented as standard history both in junior high civics texts and in advanced law school courses on constitutional law, runs something like this: A long, long time ago - 1803, if the storyteller is trying to be precise - in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison,1 the Supreme Court of the United States created the doctrine of "judicial review." Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court to decide the meaning of the Constitution and to strike down laws that the Court finds unconstitutional.As befits the name of the court...
  • Judicial Supremacy Exposed (Stanford Law Dean on the beauty of "popular constitutionalism.")

    11/29/2004 10:01:57 PM PST · by nickcarraway · 14 replies · 2,329+ views
    The American Prowler ^ | 11/30/2004 | William J. Watkins, Jr.
    The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review , by Larry D. Kramer (Oxford University Press, 363 pages, $29.95) JUDICIAL SUPREMACY IS THE gospel of modern American constitutional law. It is the doctrine that the Supreme Court has the last word on most of the country's important issues from electing a president to campaign finance reform to treatment of the Guantanamo detainees. In recent years there have been few critics of judicial supremacy. When someone of influence has questioned the doctrine, they have been excoriated in the media and academic press. For example, when then-Attorney General Edwin Meese questioned the...
  • Judicial Monopoly Over the Constitution:Jefferson's View

    03/10/2003 9:15:04 AM PST · by Remedy · 19 replies · 3,746+ views
    The Libertyhaven Foundation / The Freeman ^ | October 1983 | Clarence B. Carson
    Do the Federal courts have a monopoly of the interpretation of the Constitution? Further, are the judges, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions . . ."?.1 There is little reason to doubt that the prevailing view in the country would give a resounding affirmative answer to the first question. There are dissenters, of course, but so far as they are numerous and widely influential, their dissents are to particular decisions or opinions of the courts, not to the propriety of the courts making some decision. The judges act as if they have a...
  • Marbury v. Madison v. Ashcroft

    02/24/2003 10:39:59 PM PST · by sourcery · 4 replies · 418+ views
    The New York Times ^ | February 24, 2003 | ANTHONY LEWIS
    BOSTON Two hundred years ago today Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Marbury v. Madison. As a kindness to Justice Samuel Chase, who was ill, he announced the decision in the Capitol Hill rooming house where most of the justices lived. In that humble setting Marshall and his colleagues established the great principle that judges have the power to declare acts of Congress void because they conflict with the Constitution. After 200 years Americans are so accustomed to judges having the last word that alternatives seem unthinkable. We rely on the...