Constitutionality pretty much summed up here

[Ronin13]

We're no longer in a republic... this woman kicks ass! Basically, thanks to the SCOTUS, she said we're not a republic, but instead a monarchy! I think I'm in love...

[nynco]

She's actually right, the court in Marbury Vs Madison took powers upon themselves to overturn laws. That power is not granted in the Constitution. Ironically both Thom Hartman (liberal) and Newt Gingrich are agreement and have had discussions about this subject on Thoms show.

[Troublco]

As she put it, this country is operating as a monarchy, courtesy of the Federal Government granting itself any power it so chooses.

And she's not bad to look at.

[nynco]

Sort of, the Supreme Court is the closest thing to a Monarchy that we have. They are unelected and appointed for life. The Constitution never gave them the power to overrule laws like they do. That was a power that they usurped.

[nynco]

Here is Thom Hartman talking about what the first poster posted. Again, he has had Newt Gingrich on his show talking about this subject and they were in agreement. So please don't dismiss this as liberal vs conservative stuff. I agree with both sides on many issues. This video is pretty much a series of quotes by the founding fathers. Newt Gingrich actually wrote a book about this. I would post his words about it, but I don't know where to find them and do for Thom.



Please start at 430 to get to the point and skip over the parts that might piss some conservatives off before then.

[davsel]

Good video nynco - skip to the 4:30 mark if you do not want to suffer through the lib nonsense.
If the Supreme Court loses judiciary review, who takes it up? The people? The same people who re-elected BHO?
What will set me into motion is when BHO replaces another couple of justices within the next 4 years.
It's already over. Most just haven't noticed yet.

[jgang]

It's already over. Most just haven't noticed yet.

It will be if that's the position you take.....

[nynco]

Yeah I thought I cut out the parts before 430. I just wanted to stick to something that would not anger people. As to the answer to this quandary, I don't know. I have a hard time conceiving what the country would be like without a court that can do that. I think what the founders wanted was for the court to say it was wrong and for the people to kick out the people who made the laws. It has the possibility of weakening the constitution that way too.

[mtnhack]

And she's not bad to look at.

I risked getting flagged for bandwidth usage at work for that?

[Teufelhund]

I did start that last video at 4:30 and yes, he is on point. I disagree with his last statement that Congress should pass a law removing the power of Judicial Review from the Supreme Court. There is no reasonable need to pass more legislation which simply states, "you are not allowed to do this thing you were never granted the power to do." Alexander Hamilton made this point when voicing his opposition to the 10th Amendment; I think he was overly optimistic in thinking Congress would abide by the limitation of their power set forth in the Constitution. There are no more angels in the hearts of men than there are unicorns roaming the earth. But since we do have the 10th Amendment, which specifically prohibits the government from usurping power not specifically granted to it, let's just go ahead and hold them to it.