Walter, here is a link for your:
The Library of Congress Legislation Section[/color]
and here is a link for historical documents, which includes the Constitution:
Historical Documents[/color]
When you read the copy of the constitution at that site, you will see portions which are underlined, and function as a link. The link takes you to an amendment of the constitution which has superceded the portion of the constitution which you found underlined--a very useful feature. Of course, it helps if you know what you are looking for in the first place.
I mentioned above case of Marbury v. Madison. Mr. Marbury had been appointed a Justice of the Peace by the John Adams administration (in the District of Columbia--as it is not a part of any state, the Federal government has traditionally appointed the municipal officers). Jefferson was elected President, and appointed James Madison as his Secretary of State, and Madison refused to deliver to Mr. Marbury the commission issued by Mr. Adams. Marbury brought suit against Mr. Madison, as the responsible representative in the case. The relevant portion of the constitution concerning the Federal Courts, Article III, reads in part:
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction."
Therefore, the case went immediately to the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice was John Marshall. Marshall and his companions on the Court, in pursuance of the Judiary Act, also sat at that time as the circuit judges, and were all dedicated to keeping the courts above politics--which was very much against the trend of the times. Marshall was a very careful lawyer indeed. The Federalists were a party on death's doorstep, although no one knew that at the time. Jefferson's Republican party would within a few years, be the only party in the country. Marshall did his level best to keep the judiciary out of the bitter, even vicious political struggles of the day--and this case was tailor made for a man of such meticulous mind, who wished to stake out the "moral high ground" for the Federal judiciary.
Marshall proceeded in the anciently traditional manner of precedential jurisprudence. In his opinion, he first examined whether or not Mr. Marbury had a right to have his commission delivered to him. This was the finding of fact. His argument was constitutionally unassailable, something which Madison undoubtedly knew--as he was a man of considerable intellect, and a lawyer not less careful than Marshall. I cannot imagine that any of this episode was pleasant for him. Having arrived at the conclusion as a finding of fact that Mr. Marbury was entitled to the delivery of his commission or a copy from the record, basing this upon Article II, Section 3, which reads, in part:
". . . he [i.e., the President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."
Marshall then asserted, correctly, upon the finding of fact, that the remedy would be a writ of mandamus for the delivery of the commission or a copy from the record. He then inquires rhetorically whether or not the Supreme Court has the authority to issue the writ. What follows is one of the mostly closely and elegantly reasoned passages in the history of Supreme Court opinions, and is without any doubt the most important opinion ever issued by any Justice of that Court. Very carefully, Marshall makes the contention that a people making a social contract for the governance of their nation, who begin that process with the writing of a constitution, which is subsequently adopted by ratification, have intended that document to be the supreme law of the land. If you refer back to the portion of Article III which i have quoted above, you will see that this "supreme law" accords the Supreme Court authority as the court of original jurisdiction in the types of cases outlined there, and the preceding text of the Article lists those matters in which the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction. In those cases, the Court cannot comment unless and until an issue become the matter of an appeal. With this opinion, Marshall established the authority of the Court to pass upon the constitutionality of any legislation or executive order--either with original jurisdiction (and therefore judicial remedy) in the situations mentioned above, or appellate jurisdiction in all other matters. Given that situation, you can understand why those losing an appeal to the Federal courts will push on to the Supreme Court if possible. Marshall's decision has defined the place of the Supreme Court in our government ever since, and it has imposed upon the Justices of the Court an unwritten duty to stay above partisan struggles--which was the object of Marshall and most of his colleagues from the outset of the Judiciary Act. That not all Justices have pleased partisans of one party or another is almost not worth mentioning--it is that obvious that this will occur. That some Justices have not felt any responsibility to remain above the partisan affray should surprise no one. On balance, i would comment that the Court has an honorable record of which every citizen may justifiably be proud for its probity in excluding partisan politics from juridical review.
Whew . . . man are my fingers tired. You know, the Supremes piss people off all the time . . . so ?
