Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 18: Line 18:     
: CMarius, thanks for your insights.  I welcome your contributions, and I don't disagree with your comments above.  Marbury is not very objectionable.  However, I think the pattern of Marshall's decisions, and their aggressiveness at establishing federal power (particularly power by the federal judiciary), are objectionable.  And his tenure of 35 years?  If 8 years was enough for George Washington, I don't see how Marshall justified being in charge for 35.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:32, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 
: CMarius, thanks for your insights.  I welcome your contributions, and I don't disagree with your comments above.  Marbury is not very objectionable.  However, I think the pattern of Marshall's decisions, and their aggressiveness at establishing federal power (particularly power by the federal judiciary), are objectionable.  And his tenure of 35 years?  If 8 years was enough for George Washington, I don't see how Marshall justified being in charge for 35.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:32, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 +
::There's no doubt that 35y is quite a while, and that the founding generation created, by their actions, the precedent future generations would follow (like Washington's two-term retirment becoming an unspoken constitutional rule until liberal FDR came along). But Marshall had some justification for that: the Constitution explicitly gave him the right; the Constitution did not limit the President's terms or suggest the lack of a limit, and while Washington ''could've'' stayed on, fears of creating a ''de facto'' monarchy were less important than fears of creating a lifetime Article III judiciary. Also, of course, life tenure defrays concerns of politicization in the judiciary. Or, well... it was supposed to :).
 +
::Pleased to make your acquaintance :). I'll have to draw up a section and put it here to see if you want it added.-[[User:CMarius|CMarius]] 19:41, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
12

edits

Navigation menu