Marbury vs. Madison - Any Act Repugnant To The Constitution Cannot Become Law...

[PoconoPragmatist]

Here in the birthplace of the Constitution, it never ceases to amaze me, at the ignorance of the difference between a right and a business privilege. But here in the Jerry Springer world, of the nonproductive and the unassimilated, run by no-talent lawyers employed as politicians, who can expect more.

For more than 200 years basic law 101 has taught in Marbury vs. Madision that "any act repugnant to the Constitution cannot become law."

(excerpted from a LTTE in The Express-Times of Easton, PA, attributable to D. Lindstedt)

To which I say, "oh, really?? Someone needs to inform our Pretzeldent of this!!"

[On the Road]

1. I Got the Impression During the Starr Investigation and Clinton Impeacment

that the GOP was trying to overturn Marbury. Cannot remember which argument led to that, but it was the obvious implication of their strategy.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

2. Also in Bush v. Gore.

Marbury v. Madison established the principle of "judicial review". IOW, someone with standing can bring a case, a judge can decide it and possibly change the law with their ruling. They can strike down unjust laws and unjust prior rulings (As Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka struck down Plessy v. Ferguson, which established "separate but equal". )

Case law (Judicial decisions) have the same weight as statute law.

And in Bush v. Gore, the Supremes said "This is not a precedent".

GAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!! :grr: :grr:

This kind of stuff drives legal types nuts.

I lost my mind years ago.

[Toots]

3. Not only that but how did Bush* claim standing?

The votes were not as yet counted. Neither he nor Gore had any grievance as yet. Only the voters themselves were wronged by what happened in Florida and only they could have realistically claimed standing. It was a Coup de tat, make no bones about it.. The entire purpose of the Supreme
Court is to establish leagl precedent and for them to claim this case, and this case only in their entire history, could not do so is just the same as Bush* saying he has complete immunity from oversight because of "Executive Privilege"

[TahitiNut]

4. "This is not a precedent" is the same as saying "This is a lie."

It's self-contradictory on the face of it - a Trojan Horse of "rule by men" under the false disguise of "rule of law."

If it cannot be regarded as a precedent and is unprecedented, based on absolutely no Constitutional or legal principle, it's 'judicial activism' on steroids and a complete violation of all legal principles, imho. Indeed, it cannot stand on it's own as valid.

I'll never condone the fact that people didn't take to the streets with torches and pitchforks on that abominable day.