You'd be wrong.

Not counting TCP and other protocol overhead of course.....

I bet you're a fan of gun control too.

The Four Powers (Soviet Union, later Russia, plus France, the UK, and US) did not renounce their powers in Germany until the ratification of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany. I may not have been a total occupation where the occupying powers are running the trains and fixing traffic lights, but Germany wasn't a fully sovereign member of the community of nations either.

Apparently you don't know what the words "de facto" mean.

And what do you think would be better suited? I can't fathom that someone smart enough to know about Marbury would want Parliamentary Supremacy.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority

Congress passes a law, the President signs it, some aggrieved third party says it's unconstitutional. Exactly who do you think should review said law and make the final determination? Near as I can tell, your entire argument against judicial review is that you're unhappy with some of the results.

Coincidentally, I saw this JE this morning right after seeing a report on CBS's morning news program that said that marijuana is by far the least dangerous of all recreational drugs. They found the most dangerous was alcohol, followed by heroin, followed by cocaine. I did a quick search, it doesn't look like they've posted it to their web site.

I've found an incredible amount of misinformation about marijuana. This article says "Those who might remember pot from the 70s - the marijuana grown and sold in Colorado today is up to 10 times stronger."

The difference isn't strength of the pot, it's how its potency is measured and how pot is and was sold. They take the pot, grind up the entire bag and test it.

Today, pot is grown indoors so it has no seeds, and only the buds are sold. In the seventies, they put the whole plant; stems, seeds, leaves and all. Leaves are far less potent than buds, stems have very little THC and seeds have none at all, and the seeds are heavy. I saw pot in the '70s that the seeds were more than half the weight of the bag. So grinding up the whole bag would indicate that it's 10 times stronger, when stoners always threw the stems and seeds away and usually saved the bud for the weekend.

The best pot I ever smoked was in Thailand in 1973-4.

Now, even if pot wasn't the safest of all recreational drugs, even if it were the deadliest, how does your neighbor getting stoned affect you or society at large?

There's a chapter in a book that was required reading in a college history class in the late '70s that shows how incredibly moronic prohibition is. Alcohol and Al Capone

Look at Mexico and Columbia. Prohibition is purely stupidly evil.

Not really. Congress and the Executive never disputed Marbury v. Madison, therefore it is the de facto law of the land. I find it highly unlikely that either branch of Government is going to contest it now, 200 years after the fact. Congress would be best equipped to do so, since they exercise a lot of power over the structure of the judiciary (not to mention their budget), but do you honestly see any appetite in today's political climate to challenge the concept of judicial review? More to the point, do you really think it's a good idea?

I want to meet the person who has no drinking experience that can down half a liter of vodka without throwing most of it back up. Keep in mind there's a time component too, if you kill a bottle of vodka over the course of an evening you're going to just wake up slightly dehydrated (good stuff) or with a nasty hangover (bottom shelf); if you kill it in five minutes you're liable to have some problems.....

Which sounds awesome on paper but is completely meaningless in the real world. NATO's standard rifle cartridge relies on tumbling and fragmentation for its terminal effects. I'm not certain why it matters if a bullet fragments because of a small explosive charge or because of the design of the projectile; the end result is the same.

Umm; it's pretty hard for someone without tolerance to get to the LD50 of ethanol without first throwing up or passing out.

It's called proportionality; it applies on both the individual level (I can't shoot you in response to an open handed slap across my face) and the nation-state level (you can't nuke a country in response to a platoon of infantryman crossing the frontier)

If you want to acquire political power from the barrel of a gun you should probably stop and ask yourself if you can actually win before you cross the Rubicon.

And the Supreme Court says that the Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce extends even to plants that you grow for personal use with no intention of resale.

I don't really like or agree with those rulings but they are the law of the land, for better or worse....

He served in the United States Army, before the war, as a Commissioned Officer, which by definition means he swore an oath to preserve and protect the United States. If you're worried about your State one day needing to leave the Union then you probably shouldn't be swearing oaths to preserve the Union.

Irrelevant. Lee and several other leading figures in the Confederacy (including Davis) swore oaths to the United States. They weren't common men that joined the Confederate Army having no prior allegiance to the United States other than birthright. They had served the United States and sworn oaths to protect her. Parse this part of the 14th Amendment:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The definition of treason in the United States is "levying war against them" or giving "aid and comfort" to their enemies. That's exactly what Lee, Davis, et. al did.

You've never read the Articles of Confederation, have you?

Nope. My argument is that it was a total war and Sherman destroyed targets of military value. He didn't directly kill civilians; he rendered some civilians homeless, which is a difference that is apparently lost on you. The wanton killing and aimless destruction that you're imagining is a figment of Southern imagination. Special Field Orders No. 120, emphasis mine:

IV. The army will forage liberally on the country during the march. To this end, each brigade commander will organize a good and sufficient foraging party, under the command of one or more discreet officers, who will gather, near the route traveled, corn or forage of any kind, meat of any kind, vegetables, corn-meal, or whatever is needed by the command, aiming at all times to keep in the wagons at least ten day's provisions for the command and three days' forage. Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass, but during a halt or a camp they may be permitted to gather turnips, apples, and other vegetables, and to drive in stock of their camp. To regular foraging parties must be instructed the gathering of provisions and forage at any distance from the road traveled.

V. To army corps commanders alone is entrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, etc., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.

VI. As for horses, mules, wagons, etc, belonging to the inhabitants, the cavalry and artillery may appropriate freely and without limit, discriminating, however, between the rich, who are usually hostile, and the poor or industrious, usually neutral or friendly. Foraging parties may also take mules or horses to replace the jaded animals of their trains, or to serve as pack-mules for the regiments or brigades. In all foraging, of whatever kind, the parties engaged will refrain from abusive or threatening language, and may, where the officer in command thinks proper, give written certificates of the facts, but no receipts, and they will endeavor to leave with each family a reasonable portion for their maintenance....