 | Drucilla Cornell, Michel Rosenfeld, David Gray Carlson - Law - 1992 - 428 pages
...— Marshall clearly subordinated legislative acts of any kind to the higher law of the Constitution. "The question whether an act, repugnant to the Constitution, can become the law of the land," he argued, "is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy... | |
 | Anders Breidlid - Art - 1996 - 432 pages
...Constitution; and it becomes necessary to inquire whether a jurisdiction so conferred can be exercised. The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution...have been long and well established, to decide it. That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as,... | |
 | Bruce A. Kimball - Business & Economics - 1996 - 462 pages
...branches of government was more and more assumed by the federal and state courts. In this fashion, "the question, whether an act repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land," in Chief Justice John Marshall's words, became increasingly a judicial question. And an English case... | |
 | Bradford P. Wilson, Ken Masugi - Law - 1998 - 328 pages
...previous republican commitments? At the outset of his argument for judicial review, Marshall had asked "whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land." But as Bickel has pointed out, that's the wrong question. The real question is not "whether?" but "who?"... | |
 | William Bondy - Separation of powers - 1998 - 186 pages
...override the Constitution. In an opinion which cannot be abridged, or too frequently quoted, he says: <r The question whether an act repugnant to the constitution...have been long and well established, to decide it. " That the people have an original right tq establish for their future government such principles as... | |
 | Stephen M. Griffin - Law - 1998 - 228 pages
...in constitutional cases is similar in some respects to Hamilton's. Marshall starts with the general "question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land," and, like Hamilton, appeals to popular sovereignty to justify the supremacy of the Constitution as... | |
 | Richard M Battistoni - Law - 2000 - 198 pages
...Constitution, and it becomes necessary to inquire whether a jurisdiction so conferred can be exercised. The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution...proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it. That the... | |
 | Kermit L. Hall - Law - 2000 - 390 pages
...of the Constitution are void is a mere truism. Perhaps that is why Marshall can plausibly say that "[t]he question, whether an act, repugnant to the...constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question ... not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest."** The argument which leads to Marshall's second... | |
 | Kermit L. Hall - Law - 2000 - 506 pages
...recognize this or understand its significance. Marshall, in Marbury, phrased the first question as "whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land."46 The second was "if an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does... | |
 | Samuel A. Francis - Good behavior (Law) - 2001 - 114 pages
...Court the power to issue writs of mandamus. Chief Justice Marshall issued the opinion of the Court: "The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution,...have been long and well established, to decide it. "That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles,... | |
| |
The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain... 
