That is why impeachment, even at this late date, even if there is no trial possible, is a kind of "hygiene" and a statement of what is permitted in a democracy. The President is not to be a king or dictator but someone who uses his or her powers to further the American enterprise and protect its citizens from the over-reaching of power.

I understand that McCain advocates what Bush did. He has no sense of the world. He has shown, by his errors and absurdities (singing about killing millions of people), that he is not fit for the job. I find Hillary Clinton's comments about "obliterating" Iran similarly inapt.

So we are left with Obama who seems up to the job and, if people can get past prejudice, can do it well. I plan to campaign for him and I trust what he is saying, that he will accept a limited Presidency that protects the Constitution and doesn't use it as toilet paper.

I still think we need to vote for impeachment, though. We need to make a statement as a country that what Bush and Cheney have done is evil.

has chosen its candidate. And he has clearly signed on to the program. How long will we have to wait for his declaration that he is a living God, and change May (what a weak sounding name for a month!) to McCainuary?

It's a pretty clear choice now - McCain, facist war monger corporate tool, vs. Obama, progressive.

But there are enough dupes like Herb that it's highly possible that McCain will win. I have $100 on Obama, but a foreign passport in case the fuckers pull it off again. In this case, batten down the hatches, because it will get really ugly. I mean police state ugly. I mean invading Canada ugly. I mean nuking somebody "evil" ugly. I mean global famine ugly (this will probably happen anyway, but McCain will make it happen faster).

Before Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803), gets turned on its head? Without judicial review where would we be?

The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.

This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.

The three branches of the government should never have supremacy over any other branch- in fact, if anything, it is the executive which should have the least amount of power. This country was founded because there was a desperate need to get out from under the heavy foot of monarchy. No power was to be vested in one person. Have there been bad decisions by the judiciary? Of course. But that, in and of itself, is not a reason to limit their powers. (And I am of the opinion that most of these decisions that Republicans quote as evidence of "activist" judges are damn good ones- but then again, I live in Massachusetts- home of activist judges and gay marriage). And if they make a bad decision we have the means to correct it. Hopefully. Not that the legislature was able to do it recently (with the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act). Massachusetts is a fine example. Did our Supreme Court allow gay marriage? Yes. Did our legislature and some citizens try to overturn said decision with legislation? Yes. Did it work? No. Check. Balance. Rinse. Lather. Repeat.

It's hard to see how a President Obama (or whoever) voluntarily relinquishing some of the previously claimed executive powers would necessarily set the path for future executives.

Future presidents would still be unconstrained -- still able to pick up those previously claimed powers.

The only way for a parliamentary democracy to limit executive power is for the parliament to (re-)claim its own prerogative. Of course, we never quite adopted parliamentary democracy here. Maybe that's a problem.

As a lawyer who's been practicing in state and federal courts for over 25 years, I think I know a bit about the judiciary firsthand.

There are lawyers who have been practicing in the federal and state courts for 30 years and who disagree with you. Pursuant to your primitive, pompous appeal to crednetialism, I suppose that proves that you're wrong.

McCain's correct when it comes to the arrogance of judicial power, particularly on the federal bench. Only now are we starting to finally see, in scattered decisions, the judiciary's own recognition of this fact.

McCain's argument isn't that there are isolated judicial decisions that are wrong. Nobody doubts that.

He said that "there is one great exception" to the system of checks and balances envisioned by the Founders, and that is excessive judicial power, including the judiciary's lack of respect for presidential powers. Do you agree that's the one exception? Do you have any examples to prove that?

Judges are there to apply the law, NOT to make it, which is the job of the people, whether directly or thru their legislatures.

One would have hoped that anyone "practicing in state and federal courts for over 25 years" would have an understanding of constitutional law that has advanced beyond the most simplistic and worthless cliches. Apparently, one would be wrong.