Page 25 - 1803 News Today

And thats not a small matter. >> reporter: no its not. the appellate court was referring of course to the presidents statement on monday in which he seemed to argue that the supreme court had no right or authority to strike down an act of congress. >> ultimately, im confident that the supreme court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress. >> reporter: of course reviewing the co...

Years of supreme court precedent with regard to matters like the one under consideration. >> reporter: holder saying he would respond appropriately. that is due at 1:00 today. well see exactly what he writes. bill: what are the critics saying about this controversy, steve? >> reporter: theyre saying the president overstepped his bound and the supreme court struck down many laws in the past here is one legal expert on that. >> the judge raised and panel raised legitimate question, the administrat...

Was appropriate. he indicated that we obviously respect decisions that courts make under our system of government, and since marbury versus madison, 1803, courts have the final say on the constitutionality of stat statutes. but courts are also fairly differential when it comes to overturning statutes that congress has passed. its been examined by a number of courts and held constitutional by a number of courts, including by a couple of very prominent conservative jurists. >> there is less than 1...

Be unprecedented and extraordinary for the unelected justices of the supreme court to strike down an act of congress which, of course, as you point out is the very function and duty of the high court. even the presidents attorney general, eric holder, admitted thats not correct. take a listen. >> we, obviously, respect decisions that courts make under our system of government, and since marbury v. madison, i think its back in 1803. courts have the final say. >> reporter: well, it was the famous ...