Yes, Marbury established the Supreme Court as the Constitution's final arbiter, in much the same way as a pretender to the throne establishes himself as king by cramming the crown on his cranium and declaring, "I'm king!" As long as the other pretenders -- or branches of government --stand around and shuffle their feet and mutter, "Uh, well, okay then" he's king. In other words, the Supreme Court declared itself supreme.

My recently written remark: "the Supreme Court is not (repeat, not) the final arbiter of all things Constitutional" received a reader's rejoinder: "How is it that the Supreme Court is not the ultimate arbiter of all things constitutional? Isn't that what Marbury v. Madison said?"

Our fatherly founders sought a different ideal: all three branches of the government tree would have equal bark concerning things Constitutional. Otherwise, the act of executive and legislative electees orating their oaths to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" become superfluous. Why bother if The Court has the last say anyway?

As Fatherly Founder and permanent resident of the US nickel Thom. Jefferson observed, "You seem to think that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of constitutional interpretation, a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one that would place us under the tyranny of an oligarchy."

Thus did Chief Oligarchist Charles Evans Hughes so arrogantly opine, "We are under the Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."

Here are some examples of how the Supreme Court is not (repeat, not) the final arbiter of all things Constitutional.

Jury Nullification

That dude defied the Aliens and Sedition Acts? That vixen violated the Fugitive Slave laws? Those guys were guilty of guzzling during the Volstead days? This chick flicked her Bic and puffed a pipe full of pot? Those laws are all ludicrous. Acquit them all! Juries have the right to drive out bad laws, case by case, law by law, defendant by defendant. Absolutely nobody can review the "not guilty" judgment of a jury, not even Chief Oligarchist Charles Evans Hughes' Supreme Court. The jury members, not the Supremes, are the final arbiters.

Constitutional Amendments

How can the Supreme Court declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional since the constitution provides for amendment? By declaring the constitution unconstitutional? Voters and their representatives, not the Supremes, are the final arbiters.

Executive Diktat

Then there's the problem of Chief Executives refusing to execute Chief Justices' judgments.

The 1832 Supreme Court declared the Indian Removal Act unconstitutional. Andy Jackson, he of our newly refurbished twenty dollar bill, counter-declared, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" With military muscle from Old Hickory (the president, not the barbecue sauce), Georgia packed the Cherokees off on a little road trip to Oklahoma known as the "Trail of Tears."

"Honest" Abe, our shiny copper penny president, took a break from his unconstitutional binge of suspending Habeas Corpus, jailing newspaper editors, arresting political opponents and shooting draft resisters by the hundreds to issue an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, who apparently thought at the time that the Supreme Court was the final arbiter of all things Constitutional.

Long before our initialized president FDR became the "heads" on a flipped heads-or-tails dime he entertained wet dreams of turning America into a New Socialist Deal. But the "Nine old Men" of the court kept turning thumbs down on his soggy reveries. So Frankie D. proposed to pack the Supreme Court by adding a six-pack of new members. Fearing their power would be watered down by newbies in their exclusive clubhouse, the nine flipped out and turned tail. Socialism suddenly became Constitutional (the Constitution is what the president says it is).

Roosevelt: "I'm king!" Court: "Uh, well, okay then."

Congressional Conniving

Outside of Texas libertarian-in-Republican-clothing Congressman Ron Paul, who claims he consults the constitution whenever considering a bill, how many Congresscrats care what that old We the People parchment has to say? (The Constitution is what the politicians say it is.)

As Paul has so pithily put it, "Conservatives and libertarians who once viewed the judiciary as the final bulwark against government tyranny must now accept that no branch of government even remotely performs its Constitutional role."

And that leaves only us.

Some people pine for an Ultimate Authority, like a Bible or a Marquis of Queensbury Rules or a Book of Hoyle, to take the responsibility off of themselves. But the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of all things Constitutional. We are.