- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The surprise Princeton document : constitution convention rejected judicial veto power
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:57 pm
Posted on 4/25/17 at 3:57 pm
Google the wsj story, paywall problem. It should have been Yuge story. Bottom line, Supreme Court doesn't have the power it is assumed it has if you go with the original intent of the founders. Frick lawyers 
story ran April 17, 2017
story ran April 17, 2017 This post was edited on 4/25/17 at 3:59 pm
7
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:44 pm to jb4
Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the history of the Constitution could have told you this.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:48 pm to jb4
Marbury v. Madison was decided in 1803. Most of the founders were alive then. Hell our Constitution was 14 years old (from ratification date).
Posted on 4/25/17 at 4:58 pm to jb4
The Supreme Court gave itself this power in Marbury. Court decided it made sense that it should have this power even though it isn't explicitly stated in the constitution. Congress could take this power away by amendment.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:02 pm to biglego
quote:
Congress could take this power away by amendment.
Only States can do that, specifically 38 of them. Good luck. All Congress can do is recommend one to the States, and even that takes 2/3's of both houses. Good luck with that also.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:15 pm to TigernMS12
That's what I meant but didn't say
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:16 pm to TigernMS12
I'm kind of surprised an amendment wasn't passed after Marbury, when the founding fathers were still alive and there weren't 50 states
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:22 pm to biglego
quote:
I'm kind of surprised an amendment wasn't passed after Marbury, when the founding fathers were still alive and there weren't 50 states
Perhaps the Founders agreed with Marbury. Most of them were still alive, and I'm not aware of any of them going on record stating disdain for the decision (except for James Madison of course
)Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:25 pm to jb4
Marbury wasn't a controversial decision at the time. McCullough v. Maryland on the other hand...
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:28 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
and I'm not aware of any of them going on record stating disdain for the decision (except for James Madison of course
Thomas Jefferson did, but he wasn't part of the process that created teh Constitution (and he showed why after M v M)
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:30 pm to jb4
What branch would the arbiter of what is constitutional or not if the Supreme Court isn't?
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:33 pm to CommoDawg
The constitution itself.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:35 pm to MintBerry Crunch
quote:
The constitution itself.
Last time I checked the Constitution isn't sentient
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:37 pm to MintBerry Crunch
quote:
The constitution itself.
I'd love to have it explained to me how the constitution itself is going to explain what is reasonable and unreasonable is when there are no words doing so.
Example 4th Amendment:
quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures
This post was edited on 4/25/17 at 5:38 pm
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Thomas Jefferson did
Yeah, he wasn't happy.
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.
The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:45 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
Jefferson was such an interesting guy when viewed through our current political lens. Overall, though, Marbury didn't really seem to provoke much of reaction from everything that I have read.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:46 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
The perfect response quote that confirms TJ's prediction comes from Justice Charles Evans Hughes "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." _1862
Posted on 4/25/17 at 5:58 pm to jb4
Yeah frick John Marshall!
Posted on 4/25/17 at 6:00 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
What an incredible quote. Man was that guy unbelievably smart.
Posted on 4/25/17 at 6:02 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
Important to remember of course that the constitution was never meant to apply to state government until post-Civil War amendments. If that Jefferson quote was true then, how much moreso is it now?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News