Comments on: Judicial Review: A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void http://morewhat.com/wordpress/judicial-review-a-law-repugnant-to-the-constitution-is-void/ To build consensus on issues Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:32:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.3 by: Stanford Matthews http://morewhat.com/wordpress/judicial-review-a-law-repugnant-to-the-constitution-is-void/#comment-22198 Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:08:10 +0000 http://morewhat.com/wordpress/judicial-review-a-law-repugnant-to-the-constitution-is-void/#comment-22198 for consideration of this post The Constitution of the United States Article III Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another State;–between Citizens of different States;–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. http://morewhat.com/wordpress/the-us-constitution/ for consideration of this post

The Constitution of the United States

Article III

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another State;–between Citizens of different States;–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

http://morewhat.com/wordpress/the-us-constitution/

]]> by: Angel http://morewhat.com/wordpress/judicial-review-a-law-repugnant-to-the-constitution-is-void/#comment-22192 Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:05:52 +0000 http://morewhat.com/wordpress/judicial-review-a-law-repugnant-to-the-constitution-is-void/#comment-22192 lefties dont care if they abide by the Constitution at all! :( lefties dont care if they abide by the Constitution at all! :(

]]> by: Perri Nelson http://morewhat.com/wordpress/judicial-review-a-law-repugnant-to-the-constitution-is-void/#comment-22188 Mon, 21 Dec 2009 06:53:04 +0000 http://morewhat.com/wordpress/judicial-review-a-law-repugnant-to-the-constitution-is-void/#comment-22188 John Marshall's decision was little more than a usurpation of power not granted to the courts. Because of it we have to fight for the right to the free exercise of religion, fear for our safety from a court that enacts ex-post faxto law from the bench, and wonder at the curious in ersion of the meaning of plain words. John MarshLl instituted judicial oligarchy and the arcane twistibgs of "common law" as a substitute for a republic and statutory law. This was not a good thing in my mind. John Marshall’s decision was little more than a usurpation of power not granted to the courts. Because of it we have to fight for the right to the free exercise of religion, fear for our safety from a court that enacts ex-post faxto law from the bench, and wonder at the curious in ersion of the meaning of plain words. John MarshLl instituted judicial oligarchy and the arcane twistibgs of “common law” as a substitute for a republic and statutory law.

This was not a good thing in my mind.

]]>