[quote name='sgs89']Ho-hum, more of the same boring and completely ill-informed drivel we have come to expect. You say, "I go to college too." That sounds about right -- you sound like a college student that just started attending a philosophy/social compact class. 101 at that. Please come back when you have some understanding of the Constitution, its place in American governance, and the legal theories (yes, it is a LEGAL document to be interpreted by the courts -- see Marbury v. Madison) underlying its drafting and subsequent interpretation.[/QUOTE]
Haha, if only you knew, fella.
Who is this "we" you refer to?
Fight for that understanding! Let everyone (perhaps the "we?") know that you've got it.
And let's take a look at Marbury vs. Madison for a second (did you do that before you threw that out there? Or were you hoping that your hoity toity bull shit would be the end all be all of this conversation?)
What does Chief Justice Mashall have to say?
[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]"The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.
It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right."
Now, what the

have I been saying for the past few posts?
Lesse, what else does he say?
"[/size][/font][font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]The conclusion from this reasoning is, that where the heads of departments are the political or confidential agents of the executive, merely to execute the will of the President, or rather to act in cases in which the executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable. But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty,
it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured, has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy."
[/size][/font][font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]"The constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish. This power is expressly extended to all cases arising under the laws of the United States; and consequently, in some form, may be exercised over the present case; because the right claimed is given by a law of the United States."[/size][/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]What were you saying about this not having a place in the Supreme Court?
And what does Chief Justice Marshall say about the constitution and to whom it serves and in what way?
"[/size][/font][font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis, on which the whole American fabric has been erected.
The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.[/size][/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns, to different departments, their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments."
[/size][/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]Damn, it's like he took the words right out of my mouth! Uncanny!
[/size][/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]Here's something worth noting:
[/size][/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]"[/size][/font][font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty."
[/size][/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]And how does he finish his ruling? To what does he give power? The idea of the contract and how the contract serves the country:
[/size][/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]"[/size][/font][font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?[/size][/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.[/size][/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]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."
Your inability to consider the big picture is boring, and unfortunately, quite on track with the times.
You're going to be a big success, I'm sure of it.
[/size][/font]