I never claimed it to be explicit, I merely pointed out that Article III vests the judiciary with the power to resolve cases and controversies arising under the Constitution. Judaical review stands to follow from that; if you dispute that Congress has the power to do X where else do you turn but the Judiciary?

No effective check? Congress could increase the size of the court tomorrow and the President could appoint new members. It's been suggested before. Congress can also impeach Justices, if push comes to shove, for whatever reason it wishes, and there's no effective check on this power.

I really don't understand where you're coming from with this whole line of argument, except that you're sore over a few high profile cases. I'm sore about some of them too but I'm not ready to undermine one of the branches of Government because of it....

Sure, if you're using a burst transmission that doesn't wait for acknowledgments or the TCP window size to be set. My calculation totally took those variables into consideration. It's not as though I misplaced minutes for seconds or anything that stupid, it's not like that at all. :)

Your argument fails on the merits. See Article III snippet above. If the judiciary has the power to consider cases and controversies arising under the Constitution (this is spelled out in Article III, so I don't think you can dispute that it has such power) then how do you purpose that it exercise such power? Congress passes an infringing law, an aggrieved party sues, and then what happens?

Frankly I don't see how you can dispute the notion of judicial review. It really seems to me that you're just unhappy with some of the results (as I am, FYI) so you deem it appropriate to condemn the entire system. Why exactly do you think it's unconstitutional?

Morse code? ;)

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.

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.