03-06-2011, 04:35 PM
(03-06-2011, 02:57 PM)notsure Wrote: A. In marbury v. madison the sup court gave themselves the power to be the final review and if memory serves (its been many years since I read the case...the whole fucking case) they made themselves the final review of State law! State law! States have their own supreme courts to deal with it, but no! The feds can do it better.…
I respectfully disagree. M v M only applies where the law is in violation of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court does not determine what laws may or may not have violated state constitutions.
Quote:Second a lawyer is only appointed in criminal cases, that involve a penalty of prison and only from the point of arraignment on to conviction (and you get one appeal for free). This doesn't include civil. when the aclu brings cases to challenge the constitutionality of a law it is through civil court. ONly when it defends a person for a crime that is unconsitutional do they get that free attorney.
You are right. I apologize if I did not make that sufficiently clear. I thought I had. Nevertheless, I trust you do not dispute my central point that anyone and everyone is free to file a case challenging the constitutionality of any law, or free to raise the issue in defense against any lawsuit employing any law.
Quote:Frye v. us was regarding polygraphs which are not allowed as evidence at trial.
I am sorry, but I believe you are wrong. While that case was about excluding a polygraph test result, it was a case of first instance which required the court to frame a rule as to when alleged scientific evidence of any kind was to be accepted or excluded. That Frye rule has since been applied all over the country to apply to all kinds of alleged scientific evidence. It is not strictly a polygraph test rule.
For example, the Frye v. US test was applied to exclude use of so-called "anatomically-correct" dolls in interviewing children alleged to have been physically abused, because it was determined that use of the dolls did not meet the Frye test as being generally recognized as reliable in the scientific community.
Quote:Last: of course there are unconstitutional laws. Jim crow laws were held unconsititutional. criminal laws regarding inter-racial marriage. unconstitutional. Brown v. board ring a bell. state v. lopez (fed law for gun-free school zones) held unconstitutional (b4 you shit, the court said that making such a law falls to the states, not the federal govt. to get their nose into state schools and state criminal codes etc.) Those are the ones that jump out at me. There are others.
Bingo, you just made my point. Those laws were held by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. That's how it's done. Not by people running around yelling "The sky is falling." So, do you like that process, or you don't like it? Up above, you complained about the Marbury v. Madison decision.
Thank you for an interesting post.