Pure ad hominem[1], also linking to a 140 day old previous thread where, instead of responding to my argument, you also engaged in ad hominem. You really think HN readers are so dull brained that you need to warn them about me, lest they be persuaded by my arguments? (Which, by the way, you've dishonestly characterized here. Not all of Marbury was a perversion, part of it was correct.) I think its interesting that there are actually people like you who follow me around on HN in order to chime in and bash me whenever I make a comment that expresses anything other than lockstep adherence to your ideology.

[1] though "not that I think this refutes the point" was a nice attempt to dodge that reality.

Just to be clear, what you said then: "Maybury v. Madison is one of the key examples for my position, as it is a ruling in which the Supreme Court usurped for itself the power to decide the constitutionality of laws. The constitution doesn't grant them that power."

I think you should take me at my word, though. I generally like your comments; I even enjoy these con law debates you have (if only as an opportunity to preen). I'm not bashing you because you're you and you're talking about the Constitution again. I disagree with the substance of your argument and I've been "burnt" by the impedance mismatch between our interpretations of the Constitution before.

I know it's annoying to hear me call your interpretation "idiosyncratic", but I really do think it is. I'm avoiding words like "bad", though.

Yes, Maybury v Madison contained a criminal action on the part of the supreme court where they usurped power that did not belong to them, under the constitution, and where they correctly ruled that unconstitutional laws are invalid the moment they are signed.

The problem is you spend too much time preening, and not enough time listening to what I'm actually arguing, and too much time making broad derogatory characterizations of me-- which you should know-- I take as a sign of having zero knowledge of the subject.

I'm not debating interpretations of the constitution. I'm debating the actual language of the constitution. This is why I asked for a citation, and generally do, when I say the constitution doesn't authorize something-- quote me where it does.

If you do that, THEN we can talk about the interpretations.

Your characterization of my "interpretations" is always irrelevant, whether you call it "idiosyncratic" or "bad" or any other term. The problem is, that's the entire substance of this post I'm responding to.

If you'd made an actual argument on the point, then we could debate it.

What you've done here is called signaling. You derogatorily characterize me, and then you point to an ancient debate where you lost on the facts, by the way, because you're telling other liberals that I'm one of those "crazy" people who thinks for themselves and has actually bothered to read the constitution. Just like the other guy did when he said "randist"[1]

You want to debate me on the constitution? Read it. Talk to me about what it says, don't just make broad assertions and then refer to some legal case. (courts cannot change the language of the constitution, and there is no such thing as precedent having he weight of law.)

You say you've been burned, but that's gotta be a joke-- here I am investing time in arguing with people who can't be bothered to make arguments and instead spend their time characterizing me. You should know, the moment you do that, you've lost the argument as far as I'm concerned and I'm going to point out that choice to you in the hopes that you have enough honor to be ashamed of it.

[1] Since liberal propaganda is constantly hammering on Any Rand, accusing someone of being a "randist" is liberal code for "crazy person". The really sad thing is- the reason they focus on Rand so much is that she was right, they are an anti-intellectual movement. Rather than debate he philosophy and talk about Objectivism-- which might result in some liberals reading Atlas Shrugged because they believed they were supposed to be open minded-- they focus on ad hominems against Rand, figuring few will take the time and go read the book and discover that liberal ideology was completely refuted by it. Whenever I see the word "randist" or randian-- when rand isn't the topic of discussion-- I know I'm talking to someone whose turned their mind over to an ideology and is just unthinkingly regurgitating what they've been told to think. tptacek I'm borderline believing that about you, because you exhibit some of the same symptoms.

It sounds like you're saying that the terms of a debate with you about the Constitution are that we not rely on many, perhaps most, of the holdings of the Supreme Court including and subsequent to Marbury v Madison. The only valid points to be made in this debate are thus based on words that occur directly in the Constitution.