Arrogant judges making law...

"George Patterson" wrote in message
...


Matt Barrow wrote:

Hmmm!! I can't find that quote anywhere...

He was known to phrase it that way outside the court, and that is what is
taught
in some law classes at Yale. The more correct version was stated in
Marbury vs
Madison and goes "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is."

Which (last part there) is entirely correct, or at least for the SC to
determine the Constitutionality.

Matt Barrow wrote:

Which (last part there) is entirely correct, or at least for the SC to
determine the Constitutionality.

It is "correct" now purely because Marshall said it. If Jackson had argued the
issue by legal means (rather than just ignoring the court when it suited him to
do so), things would have been considerably different. And it is not limited to
the Supreme Court by any means.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
...


Matt Barrow wrote:

Which (last part there) is entirely correct, or at least for the SC to
determine the Constitutionality.

It is "correct" now purely because Marshall said it. If Jackson had argued
the
issue by legal means (rather than just ignoring the court when it suited
him to
do so), things would have been considerably different. And it is not
limited to
the Supreme Court by any means.

So, if not the SC, what would be the body to make the final determination of
constitutionality?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Matt Barrow wrote:

"George Patterson" wrote in message
...


Matt Barrow wrote:

Which (last part there) is entirely correct, or at least for the SC to
determine the Constitutionality.

It is "correct" now purely because Marshall said it. If Jackson had argued
the
issue by legal means (rather than just ignoring the court when it suited
him to
do so), things would have been considerably different. And it is not
limited to
the Supreme Court by any means.

So, if not the SC, what would be the body to make the final determination of
constitutionality?

SOCUS hears cases that have been appealed to it through the U.S. District courts
and Appeals courts. The judges in these courts frequently make decisions that
are not appealed, and those decisions determine what the law is. Note that
Marshall said "the judicial branch." SOCUS is only a small part of the judicial
branch.

Furthermore, while the Supreme Court takes up the issue of constitutionality,
the lower courts decide what the law is based on other factors. If you can't
come up with a reasonable challenge to their decisions based on
constitutionality, they are the final arbiters.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

"George Patterson" wrote:
...
Furthermore, while the Supreme Court takes up the issue of
constitutionality,
the lower courts decide what the law is based on other factors. If
you can't
come up with a reasonable challenge to their decisions based on
constitutionality, they are the final arbiters.


Oops, not true. The Supreme Court also decides matters where there's
a conflict among the Circuits as to a rule of law. Example: federal
tax issues, which very rarely are Constitutional matters except in
criminal tax cases.

Fred F.

TaxSrv wrote:

"George Patterson" wrote:
...
Furthermore, while the Supreme Court takes up the issue of
constitutionality,
the lower courts decide what the law is based on other factors. If
you can't
come up with a reasonable challenge to their decisions based on
constitutionality, they are the final arbiters.


Oops, not true. The Supreme Court also decides matters where there's
a conflict among the Circuits as to a rule of law. Example: federal
tax issues, which very rarely are Constitutional matters except in
criminal tax cases.

I did not say that cases of constitutionality is all that SOCUS does.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

I did not say that cases of constitutionality is all that SOCUS
does.

George Patterson

You wrote, " If you can't come up with a reasonable challenge to their
decisions based on
constitutionality, they [the lower courts] are the final arbiters."
Guess you meant better wording, though a rather minor issue anyway.
:-)

F --

"George Patterson" wrote in message
...

I did not say that cases of constitutionality is all that SOCUS does.


What's SOCUS?