larryjw

lonestar1 said:

larryjw said:

Of course, Marbury v Madison has a constitutional basis. Did you get your law degree from Wikipedia?

There’s nothing in the Constitution that gives the courts the power to “interpret” the Constitution. Marburg v Madison was a power grab, no matter what your law professor told you. If you don’t believe me, read the Constitution. Don’t “interpret” it. Actually read it, without changing the words.

longpath said:

Following the rules and jumping through the hoops set up by legislators is not using “loopholes”. Legislators & regulators use this kind of defamatory language in order to excuse their desire to expand the scope of their power. One could easily argue that the use of the “general welfare” & “interstate commerce” clause to skirt Amendment 10 is the real loophole, and that the vast majority of regulatory and intelligence agencies owe their entire existence to such loopholes, just as Marbury v Madison exploited a loophole of assuming the three co-equal branches of the central government in the US would be adversarial; but actual practice revealed that Congress would allow the Judiciary to seize a position as sole arbiter of constitutionality because of short term opposition to the President at the time, despite the fact that Marbury v Madison has, itself, no constitutional basis. The irony of regulators whose position in an organization that owes its existence to a loophole using the term loophole to disparage private business following the law & regulations sadly goes over the heads of too many.