Posted on 07/09/2005 3:15:41 PM PDT by 1stFreedom
Fact is that the decision was NOT accepted at the time it was issued and Mr. Marbury NEVER recieve the commission he had sought. President Madison noted their ruling then ignored it. It wasn't until the 20th century that this ruling began to be abused by activists on the court!
And the fact is that it's the acceptance of Marbury by the Executive and the Congress that gives the doctrine its bite. If the other branches of government would not accept it, then it's meaningless.
AMEN and amen!
That's just to get it in front of the court. Once there all sorts of mischievous can be done.
...and we have to have a judicial body monitoring them.
And, who monitors the judicial body?
What we have now is a system of unaccountable jurists who "interpret" the Constitution as they see fit.
Statutory law, yes.
Constitutional law, no.
The phrase, "What the law is," is to choose between the Constitution and the Congress. In the case at hand, the plaintiff was asking for the Supreme Court to exercise a power that the Constitution did not grant to the Supreme Court. The plaintiff was (rightfully) denied the remedy requested.
Term limits work for other politicians, why not judges?
A 12 year term limit would give judges the "independence" they say they need, while automatically limiting the damage any one judge can do. It also has the benefit of bypassing a do-nothing Congress.
Well, the Congress scares me just about as much as the Judiciary. Unfettered power in the hands of our money-grubbing, never seen a social program I wouldn't spend money on, hope to find a new way to screw the American people today Congess-critters is certainly the path to destruction.
bump
You can get rid of an elected congressman, how do you get rid of an unelected judge with a God complex?
All politicians should be disposable in some fashion, but judges hang on like leeches.
But stare decisis can be abused, as O'Connor did in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Oh?
Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; --between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
The fact is, that SCOTUS is the Constitutional last word on the Constituitonality of any particular law. The concept(s) was contained in English Common law.
The 14th was added to include controversies between a particular State and any citizens thereof. The reason was to protect federally recognized rights that were being trampled by the States.
This is one of the best editorials I've ever read on Marbury v. Madison, and even better is the fact that it's short and straightforward.
Well, the correct response is "impeachment". OTOH, how do you make that happen when almost half the country is cheering the activists on? I'll admit I don't know.
Constitutional one twelve year term then. You would get support from both sides for this since each would think it limits the 'damage' the other side can do. And with every Presidential election we would know exactly what's at stake.
I guess everyone was afraid George Washington would become a King. Unfortunately, it appears he appointed 9 Kings to decree Marbury v. Madison and thereby negate the constitution of the United States the first time the Supreme Court found itself in a bind...
My link for Marbury v. Madison is:
I use all Caps for the link (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm) because it is what I consider informative...
In a word, "impeachment." Ultimately, impeachment is meant to be a political tool too, if the judges don't follow the will of the people.
You may be able to get rid of him, but the one you put in his place will love the power and money just as much. Term limits on all branches of government is the best answer.
Has nothing to do with judicial review. Judicial Review was given to the SCOTUS in the Constitution. Stare decisis includes decisions made under the fundamental fact of jurisdiction and power given the SCOTUS by the Constitution.
Remember that it was a majority of judges who "passed a ridiculous law", from the bench, making abortion legal, and 40+ million souls have died as a result.
So, judges have literally gotten away with mass murder, and we have no way to "vote them out" after 40+ years.
You're so worried about the Congress that you seem to gloss over the misdeeds of the judiciary without a blink of the eye.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.