Members banned from this thread: cancel2 2022 and anatta |
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
We'll agree to disagree. What is indisputable is that Marbury v. Madison is the law of the land, and courts make determinations about whether laws are constitutional. They do so because the Constitution lacks specifics. For the purposes of the Second Amendment, what group makes up 'the people'? What does it mean to 'bear arms'. What is the definition of arms? The idea that there is an objectively agreed upon definition of all these things is nonsense.
domer76 (04-08-2021)
Yes, if the leaders at the time believed the courts were exceeding their power they could have taken action. I'm not aware of any efforts to overturn Marbury (although I've never really researched it).
And, it seems only logical. Without the power of judicial review there is nothing to prevent the executive or legislative branches from exceeding their constitutional powers. Without a check on those powers the Constitution loses any meaning.
then you've never really read the constitution. marbury can't be the law of the land unless you take the whole entire opinion.........which would also include any law contrary to the constitution is null and void, but then that would also mean YOU knowing whats constitutional and whats not instead of needing 9 black robed tyrants to tell you
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Bookmarks