In
Landmark Supreme Court Ruling (Marbury vs Madison) the Court Ruled "All
Laws Repugnant to the Constitution are Null and Void" The US Constitution
is the Supreme Law of the Land and any statute to be valid must be in
agreement.
Madison
went on to say that laws can enhance but not diminish that which is in the
Constitution [Madison’s Notes].
Final
Ruling of Justice Marshall:
The
Constitution declares that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law
shall be passed."
If,
however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under
it, must the Court condemn to death those victims whom the Constitution
endeavours to preserve?
"No
person," says the Constitution, "shall be convicted of treason unless
on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in
open court."
Here.
the language of the Constitution is addressed especially to the Courts. It
prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If
the Legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a
confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional
principle yield to the legislative act?
From
these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent that the
framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the
government of courts, as well as of the Legislature.
Why
otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath
certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official
character. How immoral to impose it on them if they were to be used as the
instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to
support!
The
oath of office, too, imposed by the Legislature, is completely demonstrative of
the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words:
I
do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons,
and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and
impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best
of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of
the United States.
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?
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.
It
is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be
the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and
not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made
in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
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.
Full
Text of the Ruling:
Fascinating
stuff! This is a testament to the time when we adhered to and were bound to the
Constitution, as the Framers intended. “Case Law” was not even a consideration.
It was simply the Constitution vs the law in conflict. Period!
Detinue: a legal claim to recover wrongfully detained
goods or possessions.
Mandamus: Mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of
an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public
authority, to do some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do,
and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a
statutory duty.
No comments:
Post a Comment