Marbury v. Madison—1803—was the Supreme Court case that basically invented judicial review. Here's the quick rundown:
Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Court could strike down laws if they violated the Constitution.
It started when William Marbury, a last-minute appointee by outgoing President Adams, sued Secretary of State James Madison for not delivering his judge commission. Congress had passed a law giving the Court power to force delivery—but Marshall said that law itself was unconstitutional because it messed with the Court's original jurisdiction.
So yeah, no commission for Marbury, but the real win? The Court got the power to say "this law's dead" if it clashes with the Constitution. That one decision locked in the judiciary as a co-equal branch—huge for checks and balances. Still the cornerstone of American law today.
Precedent enters the conversation. Those are the bricks that built the lawfare wall.
I once did a paper which explored how Brown vs. Board of Ed transfigured law into the illogical Swann busing decision. Precedents. Producing decisions based on a previous decision instead of the Constitution.
Yeah, precedent drives me crazy. Supposedly it's for 'consistency' so that the people are confident in the legal system. I'd be more confident if judges thought for themselves and referred to the constitution rather than some other guys previous opinion.
That decision makes all gun laws null and void. Those bringing gun laws like in Virginia, should immediately be removed from office for violating the Constitution.
" If one free man, an original sovereign, may do all this; why may not an aggregate of free men, a collection of original sovereigns, do this likewise? If the dignity of each singly is undiminished; the dignity of all jointly must be unimpaired. A State, like a merchant, makes a contract. A dishonest State, like a dishonest merchant, willfully refuses to discharge it: The latter is amenable to a Court of Justice: Upon general principles of right, shall the former when summoned to answer the fair demands of its creditor, be permitted, proteus-like, to assume a new appearance, and to insult him and justice, by declaring I am a Sovereign State? Surely not. . . ."
--Justice James Wilson, Opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, February 19, 1793
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 453–57 (1793).
Funny how they don't teach this case in Law School ?
Also interesting how they try to frame the decision solely as a states rights issue if they challenged?
"It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.
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."
They cannot take anything from you unless it is an emergency, a warrant signed by a Judge. or a Jurry trial. Blacks Law is our place to go and my brother studied it for years. He went to court, in overalls and request a Jurry trial for each ticket. the judge cleared the court and dismissed all the obviously bogus tickets. Obvious was driving up a hill that was about 45 degree from a stop sign at the bottom.
exactly, but the Police don't know the real law. I don't call the law at night if I can help it, the one that took me to the psych ward had Jet black eyes. I passed easily, 2 days later that same cop came back with his supervisor had the softest brown eyes.
Marbury v. Madison—1803—was the Supreme Court case that basically invented judicial review. Here's the quick rundown: Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Court could strike down laws if they violated the Constitution.
It started when William Marbury, a last-minute appointee by outgoing President Adams, sued Secretary of State James Madison for not delivering his judge commission. Congress had passed a law giving the Court power to force delivery—but Marshall said that law itself was unconstitutional because it messed with the Court's original jurisdiction.
So yeah, no commission for Marbury, but the real win? The Court got the power to say "this law's dead" if it clashes with the Constitution. That one decision locked in the judiciary as a co-equal branch—huge for checks and balances. Still the cornerstone of American law today.
If only more than 4 SC justices believed in the Constitution.
Aye, the sticking point.
Precedent enters the conversation. Those are the bricks that built the lawfare wall.
I once did a paper which explored how Brown vs. Board of Ed transfigured law into the illogical Swann busing decision. Precedents. Producing decisions based on a previous decision instead of the Constitution.
Yeah i hate precedence.
Yeah, precedent drives me crazy. Supposedly it's for 'consistency' so that the people are confident in the legal system. I'd be more confident if judges thought for themselves and referred to the constitution rather than some other guys previous opinion.
That decision makes all gun laws null and void. Those bringing gun laws like in Virginia, should immediately be removed from office for violating the Constitution.
And currently being abused by the lower courts due to activist judges hell bent on subverting and oppressing the Will of The People.
I'm looking forward to seeing all those criminal judges get nailed.
" If one free man, an original sovereign, may do all this; why may not an aggregate of free men, a collection of original sovereigns, do this likewise? If the dignity of each singly is undiminished; the dignity of all jointly must be unimpaired. A State, like a merchant, makes a contract. A dishonest State, like a dishonest merchant, willfully refuses to discharge it: The latter is amenable to a Court of Justice: Upon general principles of right, shall the former when summoned to answer the fair demands of its creditor, be permitted, proteus-like, to assume a new appearance, and to insult him and justice, by declaring I am a Sovereign State? Surely not. . . ." --Justice James Wilson, Opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, February 19, 1793
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 453–57 (1793).
Funny how they don't teach this case in Law School ?
Also interesting how they try to frame the decision solely as a states rights issue if they challenged?
https://federalism.org/encyclopedia/no-topic/chisholmvgeorgia1793/
Maritime Admiralty Law enters the chat...
Even born in a hospital ward, certified in birth by a registered agent of the state called a nurse. Born of water.
You betcha, Doc
u/#popcornrabbit
they ignore the real common law courts. Hillary has allready had a trial and been found guilty, the other courts just laffed at it
This SCOTUS decision is what lets these judges block Trump now.
Bull shit.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/5/137.html
"It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.
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."
They cannot take anything from you unless it is an emergency, a warrant signed by a Judge. or a Jurry trial. Blacks Law is our place to go and my brother studied it for years. He went to court, in overalls and request a Jurry trial for each ticket. the judge cleared the court and dismissed all the obviously bogus tickets. Obvious was driving up a hill that was about 45 degree from a stop sign at the bottom.
if more learned this can you imagine the impact.
Every lawyer is taught this in law school.
this case was taught in American History, when I was in 9th grade
They also taught us that there was a gold standard (in the early 1990s) which we know now had not existed since the 1970s
exactly, but the Police don't know the real law. I don't call the law at night if I can help it, the one that took me to the psych ward had Jet black eyes. I passed easily, 2 days later that same cop came back with his supervisor had the softest brown eyes.
Very interesting info, thanks.