JURIES are the ultimate arbiter
About: Hillsdale answers
This continues an argument of Seth & I (not likely to conclude any time soon) from facebook: http://on.fb.me/GETLoq
Tags
- constitution
- supreme court
Comments
Mark de LA says
Once a usurper always a usurper? We have votes & we the people can impeach!
Mark de LA says
seth 2012-03-21 11:06:37 15899
Juries determine questions of fact, courts determine questions of law. Whether something is constitutional or not is a matter of law.
& juries can find the law invalid!
Mark de LA says
Follow the FindLaw link as well: http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/article03/13.html
Mark de LA says
M 2012-03-21 19:39:18 15899
Apparently the argument is about the distinction of Judicial Review still unclear until at least Marbury v. Madison in 1803.
source: ... The United States Constitution does not explicitly establish the power of judicial review. Rather, the power of judicial review has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.[1]
...
Mark de LA says
seth 2012-03-22 10:22:03 15899
Yes, very informative article. Apparently i was wrong when i said that it was written in the constitution itself, as ... " It is no small wonder, then, to find that the power of the federal courts to test federal and state legislative enactments and other actions by the standards of what the Constitution grants and withholds is nowhere expressly conveyed" ... definitely disputes that notion.
Interesting that Breck apparently deleted the original dialogue, can't say that i blame him, but the other one at Hillsdale is still there.
M 2012-03-21 20:06:48 15899
Follow the FindLaw link as well: http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/article03/13.html
Yes, very informative article. Apparently i was wrong when i said that it was written in the constitution itself, as ... " It is no small wonder, then, to find that the power of the federal courts to test federal and state legislative enactments and other actions by the standards of what the Constitution grants and withholds is nowhere expressly conveyed" ... definitely disputes that notion.
Interesting that Breck apparently deleted the original dialogue, can't say that i blame him, but the other one at Hillsdale is still there.
It originally was on someone else's wall. In either case it sheds some light on someone's thinking.
See Also
- Thought Lecture: ‘A Latina Judge’s Voice’ with 240 viewings related by tag "supreme court".
- Thought War Powers - To Fetishize or Not to Fetishize with 68 viewings related by tag "constitution".
- Thought 222 years 1 month 6 days ago with 8 viewings related by tag "constitution".
- Thought Heritage Constitutional Guide with 7 viewings related by tag "constitution".
- Thought Bush says oversight rules are not binding with 4 viewings related by tag "constitution".
- Thought Options with 2 viewings related by tag "constitution".
- Thought about: Partial Birth Abortion with 1 viewings related by tag "supreme court".
- Thought What is so great about the South African Constitution? with 1 viewings related by tag "constitution".
- Thought We the People with 0 viewings related by tag "constitution".
- Thought What IF? with 0 viewings related by tag "constitution".
- Thought about: scalia died of a heart attack - the washington post with 0 viewings related by tag "supreme court".