Not in the eyes of one Antonin Scalia. He concurs under the necessary and proper clause. Where is his originalism? He sent it packing because he’s a good Catholic boy who hates drugs. Funny how he strictly reads the constitution and then uses one of the broadest phrases in the entire document (the old necessary and proper chestnut) to foist his own views on to the state of California.

I’m sure the little bust of Thomas Jefferson or whatever other “federalist” he adores he keeps in his office cried real tears that day.

It’d be a lot cooler if you did.

Since we’re hurling invective, I’ll be amending BigScho’s bio to note that he is a “Right-Wing Reactionary” whose fondest wish is to use the 4th Amendment as Toilet Paper.

That’s the smartest anyone has ever said on this blog.

It was argued in the ratification debates that each branch of the government would be responsible for policing the other when it came to questions of a Constitutional nature. It wasn’t just for the courts to police the other branches and itself – Congress and the Executive were supposed to zealously check the other if and when they attempted to usurp powers not enumerated or expressly forbidden. Unfortunately, this never really materialized, and that’s one of the reasons why SCOTUS stepped in to do it.

I also think we need to keep in mind that the primary point of this entire line of argument is that Bombay is a filthy hippie.

In other words, you dont have a legal controversy without such a presumption. And my point is that such a presumption is stated nowhere in the constitution. So if it exists at all (which we all just kinda take for granted at this point), shouldn’t it be reserved for the most exceptional of circumstances considering it is highly suspect to begin with?

you’re right: article III is not vague. it’s broad. it grants to the sup ct all judicial authority over legal controversies. this will naturally result in the court invalidating acts by the other branches that violate the constitution. that’s hardly “nothing.”

Valid points all. In keeping with your distain for the educated, I’m sure you’ll agree that your years of education mean nothing, and you’ll support my initiative to allow anyone to get psychotropic drugs from vending machines.

I’ll also note that we still have a debt to be settled over Dontrelle Willis, and it will be paid in blood.

1. Dr. Bombay, like many in his political party, believes that any hope for our salvation lies in the wisdom and benevolence of the chosen few.

2. All of you must have scored quite high on the verbal sections of any standardized tests you completed.

In addition, several things have thus far been omitted from this discussion:

1. Dr. Bombay’s move to acquire Dontrelle Willis in 2007, the impact of which has set his fantasy baseball team back at least 3 years. Now, while this does not necessarily invalidate his arguments, it does call into question his ability to analyze things and arrive at sound conclusions.

2. The views expressed by Dr. Bombay do not necessarily reflect the views of the CKBL or its sponsors.