Changes
/* Marshall Court: Agree on Principle, Disagree on Specifics */ well done
::There's no doubt that 35y is quite a while, and that the founding generation created, by their actions, the precedent future generations would follow (like Washington's two-term retirment becoming an unspoken constitutional rule until liberal FDR came along). But Marshall had some justification for that: the Constitution explicitly gave him the right; the Constitution did not limit the President's terms or suggest the lack of a limit, and while Washington ''could've'' stayed on, fears of creating a ''de facto'' monarchy were less important than fears of creating a lifetime Article III judiciary. Also, of course, life tenure defrays concerns of politicization in the judiciary. Or, well... it was supposed to :).
::Pleased to make your acquaintance :). I'll have to draw up a section and put it here to see if you want it added.-[[User:CMarius|CMarius]] 19:41, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Though I stand by my original constructive criticism (that there were some Constitutional checks on the early Court), I am enjoying watching your additions to the lecture. It takes me back to high school (I always loved history!). I like the remark at the end of the Marshall Court section, "there will be more on Justice Taney..." You better believe it. Dred Scott still brings a tear of sorrow to my eye, and righteous rage to my heart.-[[User:CMarius|CMarius]] 23:07, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
