That right there - in a country 246 years old - is an indication that somebody somewhere pointed looks at the Burger Supreme Court was just plain making shit up. US rights date back 246 years, not fifty. Unless you guys overthrew your government and started again without mentioning it, that is...
The US government has been subverted gradually over the past century or so. It now serves globalists over the American people. So in a way it has been overthrown.
The US Federal government is certainly acting more and more like a hostile power that has conquered the individual States, and seems set on being about as accountable.
There's a difference between Stormfag Leftists who want that level of federal power for themselves, and someone who is actually aware that the feds are operating in contradiction to the law.
SCOTUS doesn't have absolute authority over the constitution. In fact, it's power is so centralized that entire political administrations are decided by whether they get to pick a justice or not. The court was never given that much power. It gave itself that power. It never actually was given authority to overturn congress.
The court is obligated to respect the Constitution as the highest law of the land, and is therefore obligated to resolve any conflicts between legislation and Constitution in favor of the Constitution. So the Supreme Court has not just a right but a duty to nullify unconstitutional legislation.
The point that's overlooked is that duty is not uniquely the Supreme Court's. Every government employee in every branch is obligated to follow the Constitution and to reject laws which violate it.
There is a difference between nullification of the law, and a rejection of it.
Marbury v Madison doesn't tolerate the expansion of that right, it centralizes it into SCOTUS and makes it clear that only SCOTUS can both immediately force non-compliance with the law from every branch at it's decree and that it's assertion can only be overturned with a constitutional amendment, and that no other branch may challenge SCOTUS's interpretation of the law. It doesn't matter what congress said, thinks, or does, only SCOTUS has the authority to saw what the law is, even if the people who made the law disagree.
Here's the best part. Say you overturn a SCOTUS decision with a constitutional amendment. Guess who gets to decide that that constitutional amendment doesn't mean what you wrote down it meant? SCOTUS.
Marbury v Madison doesn't tolerate the expansion of that right, it centralizes it into SCOTUS and makes it clear that only SCOTUS can both immediately force non-compliance with the law from every branch at it's decree and that it's assertion can only be overturned with a constitutional amendment, and that no other branch may challenge SCOTUS's interpretation of the law.
Marshall argues unequivocally that testing laws against the Constitution is part of the responsibility of the courts, but nowhere does he say anything that would exclude other branches from the same duty- in fact, he explicitly asserts the opposite:
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. (emphasis added)
I'd say more like 100 years ago at least. Fabian Socialism came to power under Hoover for all intents and purposes. FDR turned the US into Democratic Socialism. I think many people loathe to admit it, but it was Kennedy who liberalized the US out of Socialism. LBJ put it back into "Social Democracy" territory where it stands today.
... as determined by who?
Also:
That right there - in a country 246 years old - is an indication that somebody somewhere pointed looks at the Burger Supreme Court was just plain making shit up. US rights date back 246 years, not fifty. Unless you guys overthrew your government and started again without mentioning it, that is...
The US government has been subverted gradually over the past century or so. It now serves globalists over the American people. So in a way it has been overthrown.
The US Federal government is certainly acting more and more like a hostile power that has conquered the individual States, and seems set on being about as accountable.
Don't notice too much. Someone will call you a stormfag
Be quiet, dummy.
There's a difference between Stormfag Leftists who want that level of federal power for themselves, and someone who is actually aware that the feds are operating in contradiction to the law.
What are you referencing specifically?
Hang on a second!
They're correct: hear me out.
SCOTUS doesn't have absolute authority over the constitution. In fact, it's power is so centralized that entire political administrations are decided by whether they get to pick a justice or not. The court was never given that much power. It gave itself that power. It never actually was given authority to overturn congress.
So...
Lets overturn Marbury v. Madison.
The court is obligated to respect the Constitution as the highest law of the land, and is therefore obligated to resolve any conflicts between legislation and Constitution in favor of the Constitution. So the Supreme Court has not just a right but a duty to nullify unconstitutional legislation.
The point that's overlooked is that duty is not uniquely the Supreme Court's. Every government employee in every branch is obligated to follow the Constitution and to reject laws which violate it.
There is a difference between nullification of the law, and a rejection of it.
Marbury v Madison doesn't tolerate the expansion of that right, it centralizes it into SCOTUS and makes it clear that only SCOTUS can both immediately force non-compliance with the law from every branch at it's decree and that it's assertion can only be overturned with a constitutional amendment, and that no other branch may challenge SCOTUS's interpretation of the law. It doesn't matter what congress said, thinks, or does, only SCOTUS has the authority to saw what the law is, even if the people who made the law disagree.
Here's the best part. Say you overturn a SCOTUS decision with a constitutional amendment. Guess who gets to decide that that constitutional amendment doesn't mean what you wrote down it meant? SCOTUS.
Marbury v Madison, is and was, unconstitutional.
It says no such thing. The decision is not long or hard to read, and I encourage you to read it yourself: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/marbury-v-madison
Marshall argues unequivocally that testing laws against the Constitution is part of the responsibility of the courts, but nowhere does he say anything that would exclude other branches from the same duty- in fact, he explicitly asserts the opposite:
His last line is right though, they won a revolution about 50 years ago and don't talk about it. (except when convenient to pander to the base)
I'd say more like 100 years ago at least. Fabian Socialism came to power under Hoover for all intents and purposes. FDR turned the US into Democratic Socialism. I think many people loathe to admit it, but it was Kennedy who liberalized the US out of Socialism. LBJ put it back into "Social Democracy" territory where it stands today.