New Orleans Saints Quiz: In honor of what should be the Saints
6th winning season in 34 years, I present the following. 1) What
player has the most career receptions and receiving yards in club
history? 2) Who has the most rushing yards, career? 3) Now the
bonus question.the one that separates the men from the ”Aints.
Who has the most career interceptions? Answers below.
Marbury vs. Madison vs. Bush vs. Gore
You know, sometimes your editor wishes he hadn”t decided to
write up certain stories. This only happens, oh, 3 or 4 times a
week. And so it is with my not so brilliant idea to look into the
U.S. Supreme Court”s historic ruling of Marbury vs. Madison;
one which has a lot to do with the current row over the Florida
Supreme Court”s interpretation of state law as it relates to their
ruling that manual recounts are allowable in the election at hand.
The Bush team says no, that the Florida Supreme Court has
overstepped its bounds, and was able to get the U.S. High Court
to hear one of their appeals, and, of course, we”ll find out the
result shortly.
And so, well aware that any attorneys out there will undoubtedly
riddle my attempt to add some historical clarity to the situation, I
nonetheless proceed with the StocksandNews cliff notes version
of Marbury vs. Madison. Do not read this while driving. It may
put you to sleep.
During the U.S. Constitution ratification debates of 1787-88, the
concept of “judicial review” appeared to be an essential feature
of the new order. John Marshall, who in 1801 would become
Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, said during Virginia”s
ratification convention:
“If they were to make a law not warranted by any of the powers
enumerated, it would be considered by the judges as an
infringement of the Constitution which they are to guard.they
would declare it void.”
Alexander Hamilton had argued in The Federalist Papers that the
Courts were designed to keep the legislature within constitutional
limits.
“The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar
province of the courts. A constitution is in fact, and must be,
regarded by the judges as a fundamental law. It therefore
belongs to them to ascertain its meaning as well as the meaning
of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.
“Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of
the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the
power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of
the legislature declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that
of the people declared in the constitution, the judges ought to be
governed by the latter, rather than the former.” [Federalist #78]
And so it was that as President John Adams”s term was coming to
an end in March of 1801, with Thomas Jefferson about to take
the reins of state, Adams, acting under the just signed Judiciary
Act of 1801, appointed over 50 men to a vastly expanded Federal
court system, all of whom were members of his own Federalist
Party. John Marshall became Chief Justice as well at this time.
One of those who received an appointment was a wealthy
Maryland banker and landowner, William Marbury.who is not
to be confused with the New Jersey Nets own Stephon Marbury
(though with his wealth, Stephon could also be a wealthy banker
and landowner if he so chose).
William Marbury was awarded a “commission” as justice of the
peace for the District of Columbia. And the incoming president,
Jefferson, was none too pleased.
The Jeffster, a Republican, was ticked off by Adams”s last minute
maneuvers and he was also miffed that John Marshall would
become the new Chief Justice. Jefferson loathed Marshall and
was determined to humiliate him. So Jefferson instructed his
new secretary of state, James Madison, not to deliver Marbury”s
commission.
[Actually, Marshall was supposed to deliver the commission,
himself, to Marbury before Jefferson took office but he had
forgotten to do so. I guess you could say he was lost in the
moment.]
Marbury, and 3 other men who had received new commissions,
then sued Madison and the case was turned over to the
Supreme Court.
[Now before we proceed, it is necessary to define the term
“mandamus,” which your editor heard the other day with regards
to the Bush Supreme Court appeal and was embarrassed that he
didn”t fully understand it. A mandamus is a writ, or legal
order, issued by a superior court commanding that an official act
or duty be performed. This is not to be confused with the phrase,
“You are a pain in the mandamus!” Hearing this at your local
tavern, you are allowed to counter with the charge, “Then a duel,
you fool!” Select weapons and try to blow the other guy”s head
off.]
Now where were we? The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous
opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall (two years later in
February, 1803, by the way), had good news and bad news for
Marbury.
The good news was that the Court agreed with Marbury that
Secretary Madison did not have the right to withhold the
commission of a properly appointed official. The bad news was
that the Court ruled they could not grant him a remedy.
Marbury had pinned his hopes on the Judiciary Act of 1789,
assuming that the Court had jurisdiction in the case. Section 13
of the Act gave the Court original jurisdiction in mandamus
proceedings, but Marshall ruled that this was unconstitutional
because the Constitution specified that the Court should have
original jurisdiction only in cases involving ambassadors or
states.
So what Marshall accomplished with one stroke was to chastise
Jefferson for attempting to deny Marbury his commission, while
avoiding an awkward confrontation with an administration that
might have defied his order.
But what Marshall was really doing was establishing the
precedent that the Court could declare a Federal law invalid, on
the grounds that it violated provisions of the Constitution.
“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.
“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.the court must determine which of these
conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of
judicial duty.
“It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring
what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself
is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States
generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the
constitution have that rank.”
And so, this was the first decision of the Supreme Court to not
only declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, but also to
establish the doctrine of judicial review, thereby expanding the
power of the judiciary. Up until this decision, the role of the
courts was murky.
Thomas Jefferson later criticized Marshall, not because of
theoretical claims of judicial power, but because Jefferson felt
that Marshall traveled outside the case, pretending to, in historian
Paul Johnson”s words, “a jurisdiction he then disclaimed, in
order to take a gratuitous stab at the presidency.”
In 1913, in a speech before Harvard Law School, former justice
Oliver Wendell Homes, Jr., perhaps best summed up the concept
of judicial review, and it would appear to your editor that this is
basically the argument of the Bush team as it relates to the
judicial activism of the Florida Supreme Court in the current
issue of the manual recounts.
“I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost
our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the
Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration
as to the laws of the several States.”
Well, there you have it folks. Stephon Marbury vs. James
Madison. At least my old Constitutional Law professor from
Wake Forest, Dr. Richards, who granted me two very
gentlemanly “C”s” for parts I and II of his course, would be
proud of me for at least taking a stab at this. Actually, I wish I
had paid more attention to him.
[Sources: “America: A Narrative History,” Tindall & Shi; “The
Presidents,” edited by Henry Graff; “A History of the American
People,” Paul Johnson; “A History of the Supreme Court,”
Bernard Schwartz; “American Legal Quotations,” Fred Shapiro.]
Far Lighter Stuff
–I saw this in the local paper today. Back in 1994, John Ferolito
hit his first shot off the 16th tee at a nearby golf course. The ball
went into the woods. So Ferolito took out a second ball and
sliced it to the right, hitting playing partner John Schick squarely
in the face, breaking some bones.
So now, six years later, Schick”s law suit against Ferolito has
wound its way up to the New Jersey State Supreme Court. Chief
Justice Deborah Poritz, not a golfer, asked, “Is there any legal
significance that this was a mulligan?”
The contention of Schick is that Ferolito never warned anyone he
was about to take the second shot. Those of you who golf can
understand this. But I wouldn”t call it a mulligan if it was on the
16th tee! Hopefully, I”ll pick up the Court”s decision on this case.
–From Harper”s Magazine: The number of Playboy centerfold
models since 1959 whose bios claimed their favorite writer was
Ayn Rand; 12. The number of British women killed last fall by
lightning conducted through their underwire bras; 2.
–And this from a wire service report. A New Zealand woman,
Lisa Reid, 24, lost her sight 10 years after developing a brain
tumor. But earlier this month, she knocked her head against a
coffee table as she was bending down to kiss her guide dog good
night. When she awoke the next morning, she could see.
Doctors have no explanation but said Reid had regained some
80% of the sight in her left eye.
Top 3 songs for the week of 11/28/70: #1 “I Think I Love You”
(The Partridge Family…Susan Dey…Yeah, babee!) #2 “The
Tears Of A Clown” (Smokey Robinson & The Miracles)
#3 “I”ll Be There” (The Jackson 5). [I apologize for the
politically incorrect statement with regards to the #1 tune.]
John ”Frankie” Smith
We are paying tribute to Frankie Smith who passed away on
Sunday at the age of 61. Smith was one of the voices behind the
doo wop classic, “The Book of Love,” recorded by The
Monotones back in 1958. [“I wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder
who?…Who wrote the Book of Love.]
The song was the group”s only Top 40 hit, peaking at #5. But as
was the case with most of the group”s back then, particularly
black artists, they didn”t really profit from the tune. Smith spent
the bulk of his life working as a cook at several Newark, NJ area
restaurants. And when he was dating his wife, she didn”t know
about his hit song until Frankie showed her the 45.
Saints Quiz Answers: 1) Eric Martin had 532 receptions for
7,844 yards. 2) George Rogers is the all-time rusher with just
4,267 yards. 3) Dave Waymer had 37 interceptions.
And here”s one last Saints tidbit. They have retired only two
uniform numbers. No, not Archie Manning or Eric Martin, but
Jim Taylor and Doug Atkins. Now both of these are Hall of
Fame players but, geezuz, Taylor played only his final year with
New Orleans, the franchise”s first in 1967 and one in which he
had a sterling 3.0 yd per carry avg. [130 for 390], while Atkins,
the great defensive end, played only his final three years there.
And neither player had their number retired by their primary
teams, the Green Bay Packers and Chicago Bears. It”s a travesty
I tell ya! I”m applying for a writ of mandamus.
Oh, what the heck. Here”s another Saints tidbit. Their very first
draft pick was Les Kelley, a running back from Alabama. He
didn”t play one down in the NFL; an omen of things to come.
Next Bar Chat, Friday.another installment of Johnny Mac”s
history of football.
