![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Tomorrow through the Past
Sep. 6th, 2009 12:02 amI heard about this on the NPR headlines yesterday:
And I thought, "wow, that's a particularly strong and colorful term of condemnation. And so totally fitting."
Turns out it's classicJamesJohn Marshall, from probably the single most important court case in US history, Marbury v Madison:
It's like these pesky Founding Fathers actually had some idea of what a system of laws actually meant. How 'bout that?
Appeals court rules against Ashcroft in 9/11 case
A federal appeals court has ruled that former Attorney General John Ashcroft can be sued by people who claim they were wrongfully detained as material witnesses after 9/11, and called the government practice "repugnant to the Constitution."
And I thought, "wow, that's a particularly strong and colorful term of condemnation. And so totally fitting."
Turns out it's classic
Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.
It's like these pesky Founding Fathers actually had some idea of what a system of laws actually meant. How 'bout that?
