Pandemic Timeline

Judgments

Supremacy of the US Constitution: Marbury v. Madison

Tags:

The decision in this Supreme Court Case established the right of the courts to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government.

— National Archives

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, was a U.S. Supreme Court case that established the precedent of judicial review. This judicial review power allows the Supreme Court to invalidate or declare unconstitutional actions or laws created by levels of government. The case surrounds the question of whether or not William Marbury’s right to a commission is valid and if he is due a mandamus from the court. The decision of the court also called into question the Judiciary Act of 1789 and if the constitution was superior or not. Given the supremacy clause, the constitution was deemed the supreme law and Marbury’s commission was denied and the case was discharged.

— U.S. Conlawpedia

During President John Adams’ lame duck session of his presidency, he appointed Marbury as a justice of the peace and signed the commission. Soon thereafter, Thomas Jefferson became President of the United States and refused to allow Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury. Marbury sued Madison in the Supreme Court to get his commission via a writ of mandamus.

Under Justice John Marshall, the Court specifically held that the provision in the 1789 Act that granted the Supreme Court the power to issue a writ of mandamus was unconstitutional. On a broader scale, this case established that the Supreme Court had the authority, under the Supremacy Clause and Article III, § 2 of the Constitution, to review legislative or executive acts and find them unconstitutional. The Court also delineated the limits of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, namely, political questions (which are not reviewable by the federal courts) and the limitations set forth by Article III of the Constitution. While Marbury v. Madison established that federal courts have limited jurisdiction, it also cemented the Court’s status as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.

— LII > Wex

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

— Chief Justice John Marshall (1803)

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

AS OUR SELF APPOINTED RULERS…YOU WILL PASS WHATEVER IT IS YOU ARE GOING TO PASS. I FOR ONE WILL REFUSE TO COMPLY.

I have the constitution both state and federal on my side. I am on the right side of history with this. You are on the wrong side.

Just because you can make a felon out of the citizenry with the stroke of a pen, does not mean that the people will comply.

Respectfully submitted
John Cinque
Branford, ct

THREE ELEMENTS THAT CAN RENDER COURT RULINGS VACATABLE

1. Existence of inherent fraud.

2. Existence of inherent lack of bona fide jurisdiction.

3. Existence of inherent lack of bona fide due process of bona fide law.

Sources:

Related:

Comments are closed.