This forum just made me REALLY excited! Thank you!

Right now I'm reading Kevin Gutzman's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constituion." Most interesting so far is the notion that Chief Justice John Marshall mostly hijacked the Constituion and put what was once the law of the land under the control of the Supreme Court.

Does anyone have any contention to make with this, or is this just another part of my "education" that I've been missing?

I take an incredibly conservative view of what powers the Constitution gives to the federal government, and I agree with most of Marshall's decisions, which for the time, broadened the powers of the federal government.

Thanks, I just discovered more about the person I was reading. ****ing neo-confederates. I guess you can't put the crap back in the horse. Oh well.

Disturbing though that something like this can exist with no markers or warnings for ignorant-*** people like myself. The only non-glowing review I could find was a dis by the Claremont Institute. ******s.

I should've know when he went after Lincoln as using the Union to subjugate the confederate states.

Uh, yeah, pretty much anything in the PIG series is pure conservative propaganda with shoddy scholarship at best.

Marshall basically recognized that if the Supreme Court didn't have the final say on the Constitution, it was essentially a figurehead appellate court with no real bearing or checks on policy. The tradition Marshall established basically saved the independent judiciary as we know it. Imagine if it were up to Congress alone to decide what was constitutional... it's not to say that the SCOTUS is perfect or apolitical by any stretch of the imagination, but it does have a certain insulation from the ordinary mud-slinging and nonsense inherent in Congressional dialogue.

The PIG's interpretation implies there was some kind of established tradition behind constitutional supremacy or that there was a common understanding of what the State could or could not do by the time of Marshall's ruling. Both of those are demonstrably false, and considerably so. Despite what a lot of people will tell you, the Constitution tends to give fairly broad discretionary powers to the Federal government, which was absolutely intentional.

Given how limited even Marshall saw the powers of government at the time, if someone contends that Marshall's opinions were too generous, they might as well just say they ought to abolish the federal government altogether (although I imagine that would appeal to a limited spectrum of people).

I do believe that the federal government should be abolished, but that doesn't affect my understanding of the constitution as a historical document. Too many people let their political beliefs determine what the constitution means, instead of examining it in its historical context.

See, Marbury v. Madison (1803).


Marbury v. Madison, syllabus http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...5_0137_ZS.html

There was tension between John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson. Marshall was appointed by John Adams. That aside, John Marshall as Chief Justice for more than 34 years had a dramatic influence on the Judiciary and American Government in general. It would be difficult to judge, given my sparse knowledge, whether Marshall was any more disingenuous or intellectually dishonest than his contemporaries. He was certainly given to expediency and practicality, and had a forceful and keen mind. The personal predilections and particular agendas of an individual will more likely decide which side of the ledger Marshall is placed, than on any objective measure.

I withhold judgment, pleading ignorance as an excuse.


-Zeno