How You Can Know That The Marbury Power Is Illegitimate

I CAN'T RESPONSIBLY not mention it at this point.   If you read through my earlier post you will have read this paragraph:

These same cases will also show that we have very effectually disposed of the last safeguard against the establishment of a judicial veto upon any and all acts of our legislative assemblies by discarding the rule that the courts must limit their inquiry to the question of the existence of the power which the legislature has undertaken to exercise, and that where the power exists its exercise is beyond the judicial sphere of influence.  The courts now openly review the use made by the legislature of its conceded powers, thus arrogating to themselves a distinctly legislative function. 

What the Supreme Court does, the legislative function it usurps when it nullifies a duly adopted federal law, is, in absolute fact, an unconstitutional veto on legislation the Congress has passed.

Anyone who claims such a power is to be found with a judicial Ouija board in the Constitution is lying.  And the means of knowing beyond any possible doubt that they are lying is found in the Constitution, in the plainest language, in the very body of it, in the first articles of it defining the roles of first the most essential body, the Congress and then the Presidency,  IN WHICH THE ONE AND ONLY VETO POWER INCLUDED IN THE CONSTITUTION IS LAID OUT IN AS EXPLICIT A WAY AS COULD POSSIBLY BE DONE.      

The first veto is by the Congress when they refuse to make give a proposed law the votes necessary for it to become law.  That's such an intrinsic role of the legislature that they don't even bother to call it that.  Nullification of proposed legislation is an intrinsically legislative action. 

The second veto is given to the president, and it is not an especially strong power because there are rules laid out by which a president, by his action or inaction, either issues a veto on the legislation or not and it becomes law through action or inaction.

And even that presidential veto power is restricted because if a sufficiently large majority in both houses vote in favor of it, they can quash a presidential veto and the legislation becomes law without the presidents approval.

With those strong and explicit definitions of a legitimate veto under the Constitution, any asserted judicial veto of such laws can only be either the founder's pulling a con job on We The People and, therefore, it is illegitimate or, what actually is the case, the unelected "justices" on the court lied us into having one by them usurping that power which belongs, not only in a weak way to the president, but in a decisive way to the Congress. 

If the framers gave the president a power to veto legislation that can be overcome by the congress overriding that veto, IT IS BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT IF THEY INTENDED THE UNELECTED COURT TO HAVE ONE THEY WOULD HAVE GIVEN THE CONGRESS THE POWER TO OVERRIDE A JUDICIAL VETO, ONE BY WHICH, AS BOUDIN POINTS OUT, A MERE MAJORITY BY ONE OF THE "justice" NULLIFIES A DULY ENACTED AND OFTEN LONG-STANDING LAW, even laws repeatedly supported by Congress, presidents and previous Supreme Courts.  

I thought someone should point that out,  I can't recall it ever being put quite this way.