“It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each. So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”

It is emphatically the province and duty of the individual sovereign at common law to say how to administer that law of nature and of nature's God that exists eternally and recognize corporeally. Natural law does not conflict with its self - only the rules of tyranny conflict with each other. The sovereign in a judicial setting does not conform to malefactor's rules but rather determines "fact" and "law" of each and every case. About the only accurate part of this comment is that the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply."

Well said Mike, " Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature " such would be and is the case before the 9th district circus, trying to legislate from the Bench. Marshall being a member of the Federalist party siding with Hamilton apposing Jefferson and Madison.

Rarely is there a situation that has not already been decided by the courts, for it is their decision that in most cases takes precedent over the written law and the constitution.... otherwise, why have a Supreme court....

robert, a minimal reason for a Supreme Court is to be a check and balance on the other 2 branches. The U.S. Supreme Court's de jure function is to federalist actions only - with no authority to exceed the Constitution's limiting parameters (if the Constitution doesn't address it, the Supreme Court can't legally or lawfully rule on it). As to written law, if unconstitutional, it is void ab initio (individual injured parties have original jurisdiction in adjudicating such issues - that is another reason why judicial review is probably outside the Court's parameters). Issues such as Article IV Section 4 and the 14th Amendment give some leeway to the to the Court BUT, even at that, the Court is to only address the politic of government (there being no license to address individual rights or personal issues - that remaining a State's issue). Of course, no Constitution is recognized in the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land so the Supreme Court is going to do what ever it wants.

Will America ever return to honest law and due process?