I made the following comment:
Marburys Rules of Construction:Problem, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is a very important case in Supreme Court jurisprudence. One doesn't need to go very far to find that out. The first result in my google search was:
"1) "The rights enumerated in this Bill of Rights shall not be construed to limit other rights of the people not therein expressed. For (not to mention the liberal and beneficial manner of Construction which we have a right to) the plain, natural, and obvious meaning of the charter is, to grant and confirm certain Rights, Privileges, and Immunities to all his Majesty's subjects who then did or ever should inhabit that tract of country in America usually called Virginia, according to the Descriptions and Boundaries of the original Charters, not before otherwise appropriated or disposed of by His Majesty's Ancestors." - George Mason, July 1773, Extracts From The Virginia Charters, With Some Remarks On Them Made In The Year 1773"
Thus the rights are construed liberally...
Laci wrote: "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect"
Yep, and you seem to believe the 2nd is without effect, because you can not tell us what the 2nd protects. You say it is obsolete and "irrelevant since 1792", which directly contradicts this presumption.
You are not too good at this Lacy...
Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaa little further down in the results one finds:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._MadisonMarbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law and in the history of law worldwide. It formed the basis for the exercise ...
I made a post about this case earlier on in response to:www.lawnix.com/cases/marbury-madison.htmlFacts, issue, holding, and rule of law in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison – Case Brief Summary.
An anonymous idiot, said:The problem, LegalEagle45, is that this case is the first one studied in Law School Constitutional Law classes for precisely the reasons I gave in the aforementioned post:
You mention Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), quite a bit.
And for good reason. But anon missed this post: An Interesting Factoid. He also doesn't have an understanding of the fundamentals of Constitutional law.
Marbury is a landmark case in United States law and in the history of law worldwide. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. It was also the first time in Western history a court invalidated a law by declaring it "unconstitutional", a process called judicial review. The landmark decision helped define the "checks and balances" of the American form of government.LegalEagle, while sounding as if he knows something about the law demonstrates that he does not have one of the extreme basics of US Constitutional law and Supreme Court Jurisprudence--knowledge of the case Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
Since it defined judicial review, it also provided guidelines for that review--the most important of which is the one I keep mentioning--that "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect".
According to Marbury, One cannot presume that any language in the Constitution is mere surplusage--is entirely without meaning.
Sorta sad statement about the US educational system that you have to get your civics lessons from a Brit!
That is the rough equivalent of not knowing what a stop sign looks like or which side of the road you drive on if you are able to drive a car.
Perhaps, this is why he was consistently making my argument for me through his ignorance.
Yes, LegalEagle, you just made a goal--
FOR THE OTHER TEAM
And you can't stop doing it.
While this is the most egregious of his mistakes, if one is at all familiar with the law, legal practise, and legal method, one would see that LegalEagle45 consistently got it wrong from citing cases and authorities which supported my case if they didn't just fail to refute it.
I should also add, as a landmark supreme court case, Marbury is actual legal precedent and LegalEagle45's George Mason quote is pure blather. Again, LegalEagle provides a quote which doesn't really make his point, but he keeps hoping that if he quotes lots and lots of people, it might snow the unwary into thinking he has some idea of what he is talking about.
As I said after reading his first response--thanks for making my case for me.
But in this instance, LegalEagle45, you really fucked it.
You fucked it royally.
Whenever I hear someone parrot "individual right, individual right, individual right", it reminds me of this:
Substitute "individual right" for "Brawndo".
One more nail in LegalEagle's coffin:
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Marbury v. Madison, arguably the most important case in Supreme Court history, was the first U.S. Supreme Court case to apply the principle of "judicial review" -- the power of federal courts to void acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution. Written in 1803 by Chief Justice John Marshall, the decision played a key role in making the Supreme Court a separate branch of government on par with Congress and the executive.
And another from Time: