Well, yes, but their religion has nothing to do with it. And while they’re at it, they should take Thomas and Roberts with them. Then we can start anew with a clean slate of human beings instead of the corporate robots we have now.

1. The Constitution says it is the Supreme Law of the Land, along with Statutes enacted pursuant to its provisions.

2. The Bill of Rights, 1st Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of . . .”

3. Article III puts the judicial powers into federal courts and the Supreme Court.

So if Congress does enact such a law in violation of the Constitution/Bill of Rights, Burns’ view is that the Supreme Court should just dismiss any suits challenging its application? The answer is not about stealth; it’s simple logic of what it means to have a Constitution creating a government of limited powers. Otherwise, it’s meaningless.

From Emily Bazelon’s review of his newest book, “Packing the Court, the Rise of Judicial Power and the coming Crisis of the Sup Ct.”:

Burns begins, as he must, by taking aim at Marbury v. Madison, the courts’ first turn as usurper. The Constitution did not grant the Supreme Court, or any other court, the power of “judicial review”—the authority to strike down federal laws as inconsistent with the text or meaning of the Constitution as the court interprets it. Instead, Chief Justice John Marshall stealthily took this power for his branch in Marbury in 1803.

Well, that explains his questions. But really, it’s a little late to be complaining about Marbury v. Madison.

Who chooses the folks to write these articles? Disappointing.

chertoff is equally bad, but wasn’t in quite the same position to do as much harm as Gonzales – still, surely he’s been disgraced, also?

And even worse, the Caucus blog, which asked readers to do the same thing, elicited really hostile, stupid questions from readers. I gave up reading them after the first page. Not a single one in those that wasn’t deeply hostile.
I was also shocked by the questions of James McGregor Burns – I thought he was a historian, rather than a legal expert, so I dunno, I guess I thought he’d be reasonable. Guess I should google him, huh?
Amazing.

There’s no such thing as bad publicity, and there’s no such thing as a bad hit. They’ll take the hits any way they can get them. It doesn’t matter whether you’re agreeing, disagreeing, or mocking.

The NYT online edition isn’t there to inform (though it sometimes does) – it’s there for the hits. Hits trump truth or integrity.

Sorry for being Captain Obvious, but people tend to lose sight of these things.

2. Shouldn’t the Supreme Court overturn Marbury vs. Madison and let Congress and the President destroy the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

No, no, Congress and the President should just ignore Marbury vs. Madison, since that came after the “original intent” and therefore can’t possibly be what the Constitution is supposed to mean!