The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them.

Is he saying that Congress should have stopped an interpretation that gives each citizen a right to privacy? I swear, the Republicans get more and more frightening and drunk with power each day.

Might need to update my earlier post and say, ok, fine I will vote Democrat in 2008.

You guys are pretty close to John Hostettler, why not try having that conversation with him or his staff first.

He's come out firmly against believing that Mauberry was constitutional among a whole host of other crazy ideas that have no business being legislated as fact by a member of Congress.

Changing the mind of the Republican caucus starts at home!

There is quite a lot of scholarship devoted to revising the current opinion of Marbury. Rational people can examine rational arguments and come to different conclusions especially if they are not involved in any politics of the time back then. Mr. Ed ought to read Hamburger's recent book or Bradley's before that concerning what he did not learn in high school and certainly won't learn in law school. When he gets to an age where he can disregard indoctrination he will opine better but stuck in the legal cocoon of positivism he had better wait until he gets out, e.g. suffer the trade school aspects, learn later.

I admit to not having read much serious scholarship on the question, but it seems to me that the key question is whether Marbury was rightly decided or not, whether Article III really did provide the authority for judicial review. Federalist 78 certainly supports the ruling, and I can't think of a more authoritative source than that. And the anti-federalists who wrote of the dangers of judicial review in urging rejection of the Constitution would seem to as well. Are there good arguments against this? If so, I'm certainly open to hearing them and changing my view. In fact, I'd be excited about the opportunity to learn something new.

. . . it seems to me that the key question is whether Marbury was rightly decided or not, whether Article III really did provide the authority for judicial review.

It is indeed, and there should be little question that Marbury was correctly decided. Even those who argued against judicial review (and there were only about four at the founding) on policy grounds understood that Article III granted this power to the Court.

Not so fast. There is something "put up" about the Marbury case. A scholar actually went through the transcript of the case. I have not seen a confirmation of his findings. Usually, you would like at least two sources for information as sometimes the first one might be a quack. The crack about midwestern scholars, Hamburger and Bradley, pertains to the Everson Abortion. Even Hitler called FDR "That Old Mason". Hamburger is I think U of Chicago, Bradley is of Notre Dame.

Anonymous wrote:

Not so fast. There is something "put up" about the Marbury case. A scholar actually went through the transcript of the case. I have not seen a confirmation of his findings. Usually, you would like at least two sources for information as sometimes the first one might be a quack. The crack about midwestern scholars, Hamburger and Bradley, pertains to the Everson Abortion. Even Hitler called FDR "That Old Mason". Hamburger is I think U of Chicago, Bradley is of Notre Dame.

Okay, I've read this about 5 times and I haven't the foggiest idea what it means. Reference to an unnamed scholar without any reference to what he actually said, reference to the "everson abortion" (whatever on earth that is) and then a wholly gratuitous comment about Hitler and FDR. I'm stumped completely.

It means that "Anonymous" is a right wing whack job who believes in conspiracy theories. That's all it means, Ed.

Perhaps, everson should have been capitalized to Everson, SC decision circa 1947. For the unread, it is the case in which Jefferson's phrase was ripped out of context and the clear meaning of "establishment of religion" was subverted and perverted by six or seven Masons. I am seeking the article referenced but I read a lot and at the time had no particular reason for keeping track of it. However, the Agora audience is probably better read and with any luck another reader with better memory or reason to remember could cite it.

A quick search online shows that Everson was a decision wherein the Supreme Court in 1947 said that Ewing Township in New Jersey had the right if they chose to reimburse residents forced to use public transport to get their children to school, including those sending their children to Catholic parochial school. They were sued on the basis of the establishment of religion clause in an effort to limit that reimbursement to public schools. Why Anonymous is citing it is beyond me since Ewing Township won.

Sorry, further research shows that while they upheld the statute it was where they delivered the currently accepted definition of separation of church and state.

I would still like to find out what the comment about Hitler, FDR, and the Masons had to do with anything, and what made Everson an abortion.

Jim asserts that the "current definition" has been accepted. It has not. It is not a definition at all and has led, in its imprecision, to a long legal struggle to square a circle. It was judically incoherent, historically inaccurate, and the beginning of the assault on religion. Consider: Establishment of Relgion HAD a clear and precise meaning in English and American Law until this dumb decision. That court contained seven Masons or so and was, essentially FDR's court. FDR's role in Masonery is not much commented upon but Adolph Hitler, credited FDR's Masonism for being motivation.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com and skim the book review of Professor Hamburger's most recent work to decide it you want to put the time in to knowing the sausage making behind high sounding law making accomplished by the KKK among others.