Mark Dolan Tonight | Saturday 31st August

Download the GB News app! You can watch GB News on all of your favourite devices and keep up to date with the latest news, analysis, opinion and more.

[ruthcollins]

The public also remember which party left NO money in the Treasury vaults in 2010!😡

[ruthcollins]

The civil serpents have not been impartial since 1997! 👎😡

[christinewilson]

I think the Conservatives are doing a wonderful job in opposition; sit back, say nothing, watch Lie-bore destroy the country, the country turn against Lie-bore, and hopefully vote conservative at the next election 😂😂😂

[SteveXNYC]

The doctrine of federal judicial supremacy was fastened onto the necks of the
American people as an irrevocable yoke because it was done insidiously, and
under the cover of more striking and dramatic events, such as the Civil War. After
the Second World War, the judicial activists, who had thoroughly cowed the leaders
of our two political parties, imposed a series of stunning decisions which, in effect,
placed the American people on notice that they now had no rights remaining to
them. This situation was dramatized by Gov. Orval Faubus of Arkansas, in a
speech to the Arkansas Legislature, Aug. 26, 1958, in which he quoted extensively
from the resolutions passed by the Conference of Chief Justices of the State
Supreme Courts earlier that month, concluding with their finding that:
"The Supreme Court has been usurping the rights reserved to the states by the
Constitution.. . . It is not merely the final arbiter of the law; it is the maker of policy in
many major social and economic fields."
The activists' pretensions to judicial supremacy dates from the historic case of
Marbury v. Madison, 1803. The decision was the work of Chief Justice John
Marshall, who had been appointed to the court by President John Adams, the
leader of the New England school of separatists. Marshall ruled that the judiciary
has the power to strike down any law or act of Congress which violate the
Constitution under Art. III, sec. 2 par. 1, or "the supreme law of the land" clause,
Art. VI, sec. 2. However, Marbury v. Madison, rather than being a sweeping review
which established the court as the final arbiter of government power, was actually a
partisan political squabble over the spoils of election victory. Congress had passed
a new Circuit Court bill Feb. 13, 1801, which authorized sixteen additional federal
judges. Pres. Adams at once filled them with Federalists, who were confirmed by
the Senate March 2, and their appointments signed by President Adams and sealed
by Secretary of State John Madison on March 3. Marbury v. Madison arose from a
comparable situation, the passing on Feb. 27, 1801 of the District of Columbia
Organic Act, provided for the appointment by the President of justices of the peace
for Washington and Alexandria within the District.
On March 2, the President nominated twenty-three justices for Washington and
nineteen for Alexandria and sealed by the secretary before midnight of March 3, the
famous "midnight justices of the peace. The commissions were delivered that same
night by Marshall's brother James. However, William Marbury of Washington did not
have his commission delivered, which became the subject of litigation in December
of 1801; the case was finally heard by the Supreme Court in Feb., 1803. John
Marshall believed that the commissions were valid when the Seal of the United
States was affixed, rather than when they were delivered. Today, the Supreme
Court has no file on the case or any of the papers relevant to it. The only record is
that made by reporter William Cranch. The Court ruled that Marbury had a right to
the commission because of the power of the Court to adjudicate the validity of an
Act of Congress. However, the Court refused to issue a writ of mandamus, thus
deciding in favor of Madison. The Court stated that the Constitution forbade the
grant of power to issue the writ but that the Court did have the power of judicial
review. The Court ruled that the Constitution was the superior and paramount law,
unchangeable by ordinary means, and the supreme law of the land. Sec. 13 of the
Judiciary Act of 1789 attempted to give the Supreme Court power to issue a writ of
mandamus in an original proceeding against an officer of the United States,
including the Secretary of State; the Court concluded that Art. Ill of the Constitution
prohibited the grant of such power by Congress to the Supreme Court.
Thus the original dilemma, that Secretary of State James Madison had worked
far into the night signing commissions of justices of the peace for the Federalist
Party, including Marbury's commission, had had part of his work undone when the
incoming Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, seeing the stack of signed co mm
issions on the following morning, decided that he would not allow them, and threw
them into the wastebasket. Marbury then sued to obtain the commission he had
been promised for his dedicated party service. In deciding the case, Chief Justice
Marshall, one of the leaders of the Federalist Party, cleverly avoided the main issue
before the Court, that of partisan politics, and shifted the issue to one of
governmental powers, by deciding that the final arbiter would henceforth be the
Supreme Court.
Thomas Jefferson delivered his opinion on the Marbury v. Madison decision,
stating

[brucerawlinson]

Mark Dolan Tonight more like a advertisement fest for GB news shows