HELP SAVE A RIGHTEOUS MAN

Please read the following op-ed about a brave man and my friend, Dr. Wang Bingzhang, who is serving a life sentence in a prison in China. He has committed no crime, other than having spent most of his adult life advocating for democracy for China.

I have known Dr. Wang since 1983, when I joined the movement he founded, the Chinese Alliance for Democracy. The CAFD was the first overseas Chinese democracy movement.

My many years as a China scholar tell me that the Chinese government will succumb to international opinion and release a political prisoner only when there is much international publicity and outrage about that individual. Only then will Beijing decide that it's simply not worth it to continue incarcerating that individual.

Given that, I would be most grateful if you would:
(1) Forward this op-ed to as many people as possible who are on your e-mail list;
(2) After you've read the op-ed, please help secure Dr. Wang's release by writing your representatives in Congress at https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml. You need only to copy & paste this op-ed as your letter.

As Americans, we take our freedom for granted. It does not cost us anything to expend a few minutes of our time to do the above.

Thank you.

* * * * * * * *


Fighting for My Father's Freedom
By Ti-Anna Wang
Washington Post
Sunday, January 11, 2009; Page B07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/09/AR2009010903166.html

When I was born in 1989, my parents named me Ti-Anna in commemoration of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Most of my friends started their first year of college last fall, but, instead of beginning my studies, I have taken a year off from school and moved to Washington. My father is a political prisoner serving a life sentence in China for opposing communism, and I am spending this year advocating for his freedom.

My father, Wang Bingzhang, founded the Chinese overseas democracy movement. He went to Canada in 1979 to pursue graduate studies at McGill University. Having lived through the Chinese Communist Party's Cultural Revolution and other political campaigns and purges, he was convinced that the Chinese people deserved a democracy ruled by law. Compelled by that ideal and his love of country, my father gave up a promising career in medicine to devote his life to the democratic transformation of China. He moved to New York in 1982 to gain the support of and to work with like-minded Chinese immigrants and expatriates in constructing the overseas Chinese democracy movement. For almost 20 years, my father dedicated himself to this cause. While he faced many challenges within and outside the movement, he was unwavering in his commitment to Chinese democracy.

In June 2002, my father traveled to Vietnam to meet with two fellow labor activists. They were conferring over lunch in a restaurant near the China-Vietnam border when several men speaking Chinese ordered them into a car. Beaten, blindfolded and gagged, my father and his two colleagues were abducted into China by boat. They were left in a Buddhist temple in Guangxi Province for the Chinese authorities.

My father was held incommunicado for six months, in contravention of China's own Criminal Procedural Law, after which he was charged with "offenses of espionage" and the "conduct of terrorism." His "trial" lasted one day and was held behind closed doors. During the proceedings, my father was not allowed to speak, nor was any evidence presented or witnesses called. He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. The identities of his abductors have never been discovered.

Since his imprisonment, my family, with the assistance of lawyers, fellow activists and friends, has brought his case to the international community. The United States, Canada, Taiwan, the European Union, the United Nations and Amnesty International have all called upon the Chinese government to release him. Despite our efforts, though, my father remains in prison.

In the year leading up to the Summer Olympics in Beijing, we thought the world's scrutiny of China would motivate the Communist Party to demonstrate its professed modernization by addressing its problematic record on human rights. In our most misguided moments of naive optimism, we even entertained the notion that China would release people like my father to quell international criticism. Instead,the Games came and went, and the dominant theme of the world's media was China's success in the medal standings and as a world power. Forgotten were the many prisoners of conscience, such as my father, who continue to suffer in China's prisons and labor camps.

As the world celebrates the arrival of a new year, my father is beginning his seventh year of incarceration. He is no longer the young man who founded the overseas democracy movement; today, he is in his 60s, and since his imprisonment his health has deteriorated steadily. He suffers from chronic phlebitis, severe allergies and untreated depression. He has had three strokes in the past six years, all while being kept in solitary confinement. He is allowed one family visit per month that can last about 30 minutes. Our relatives have spent thousands and thousands of dollars to go halfway around the world to see him. While my father languished in prison, my grandfather passed away. My grandmother, who is unable to travel overseas, prays every day for his return, hoping against hope that she may live to see her son again.

This year, before I resume my schooling, I hope to raise awareness about my father's case and tell his story to remind people that despite China's economic success, it is still a country that has yet to embrace universally accepted values of human rights. Any government that jails its own people for political dissent still has a long way to go to become a respected member of the international community.

The values of freedom and democracy upon which America was founded are the same values that once inspired my father and are the ones to which he remains dedicated. Those values are not just every American's birthright; they are the fundamental rights of all human beings.

The writer lives in Washington. Her family maintains a Web site about her father and his imprisonment at http://www.wangbingzhang.com.

WHAT A BRAVE WOMAN!

On February 21, 2006, Memri TV broadcasted an interview with an extraordinarily brave woman, Dr. Wafa Sultan, an Arab-American psychologist. Millions have seen the interview. To see the interview, go to http://www.messianicassociation.org/ezine03sultan.htm

Because of the rapid-fire nature of the exchanges between Dr. Sultan and the host, I thought a transcript of the interview would be useful. Here it is, courtesy of http://www.messianicassociation.org/ezine03sultan.htm:


Transcript of Interview
MEMRI TV PROJECTAl-Jazeera TV (QATAR)
February 21, 2006
Host: Faisal al-Qassam
Panelists: Dr. Wafa Sultan, Egyptian Professior of Religious Studies; Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouly.



Sultan: The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras.

It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings.

What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.

Al-Qassam: I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the west and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?

Sultan: Yes, that is what I mean.

Al-Qassam: Who came up with the concept of the clash of civilizations? Was it not Samuel Huntington? It was not Bin Laden. I would like to discuss this issue with you, if you don't mind.

Sultan: The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger."

When the Muslims divided the people [between] Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to stop this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.

My colleague has said that he never offends other people's beliefs. What civilization on the face of this earth allows him to call other people by names they did not choose for themselves? Once he calls them Ahl Al-Dhimma, another time he calls them the "People of the Book," and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he calls the Christians "those who incur Allah's wrath."

Who told you they are "People of the Book"? They are not the People of the book, they are people of many books. All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking.

What gives you the right to call them "those who incur Allah's wrath," or "those who have gone astray," and then come here and say that your religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?

I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it. I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it.

Al-Khouli: Are you a heretic?

Sultan: You can say whatever you like. I am a secular human being who does not believe in the supernatural.

Al-Khouli: If you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran.

Sultan: These are personal matters that do not concern you. Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me.

You are free to worship whoever you want, but other people's beliefs are not your concern, whether they believe that the Messiah is God, son of Mary, or that Satan is God, son of Mary. Let people have their beliefs.

The Jews have come from the tragedy [of the Holocaust] and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror; with their work, not with their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. Fifteen million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge.

We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people.

The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.

(Transcribed by Norman Manzon)

THE NIGHT WE WAVED GOODBYE TO AMERICA

This is simplest the best essay on the 2008 presidential race. It's by Peter Hitchins, a Brit who writes for the UK's Daily Mail.


The night we waved goodbye to America... our last best hope on Earth
10th November 2008
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1084111/PETER-HITCHENS-The-night-waved-goodbye-America--best-hope-Earth.html


Anyone would think we had just elected a hip, skinny and youthful replacement for God, with a plan to modernise Heaven and Hell – or that at the very least John Lennon had come back from the dead.

The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilisation. At least Mandela-worship – its nearest equivalent – is focused on a man who actually did something.

I really don’t see how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts.

It already has all the signs of such a thing. The newspapers which recorded Obama’s victory have become valuable relics. You may buy Obama picture books and Obama calendars and if there isn’t yet a children’s picture version of his story, there soon will be.

Proper books, recording his sordid associates, his cowardly voting record, his astonishingly militant commitment to unrestricted abortion and his blundering trip to Africa, are little-read and hard to find.

If you can believe that this undistinguished and conventionally Left-wing machine politician is a sort of secular saviour, then you can believe anything. He plainly doesn’t believe it himself. His cliche-stuffed, PC clunker of an acceptance speech suffered badly from nerves. It was what you would expect from someone who knew he’d promised too much and that from now on the easy bit was over.

He needn’t worry too much. From now on, the rough boys and girls of America’s Democratic Party apparatus, many recycled from Bill Clinton’s stained and crumpled entourage, will crowd round him, to collect the rich spoils of his victory and also tell him what to do, which is what he is used to.

Just look at his sermon by the shores of Lake Michigan. He really did talk about a ‘new dawn’, and a ‘timeless creed’ (which was ‘yes, we can’). He proclaimed that ‘change has come’. He revealed that, despite having edited the Harvard Law Review, he doesn’t know what ‘enormity’ means. He reached depths of oratorical drivel never even plumbed by our own Mr Blair, burbling about putting our hands on the arc of history (or was it the ark of history?) and bending it once more toward the hope of a better day (Don’t try this at home).

I am not making this up. No wonder that awful old hack Jesse Jackson sobbed as he watched. How he must wish he, too, could get away with this sort of stuff.

And it was interesting how the President-elect failed to lift his admiring audience by repeated – but rather hesitant – invocations of the brainless slogan he was forced by his minders to adopt against his will – ‘Yes, we can’. They were supposed to thunder ‘Yes, we can!’ back at him, but they just wouldn’t join in. No wonder. Yes we can what exactly? Go home and keep a close eye on the tax rate, is my advice. He’d have been better off bursting into ‘I’d like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony’ which contains roughly the same message and might have attracted some valuable commercial sponsorship.

Perhaps, being a Chicago crowd, they knew some of the things that 52.5 per cent of America prefers not to know. They know Obama is the obedient servant of one of the most squalid and unshakeable political machines in America. They know that one of his alarmingly close associates, a state-subsidised slum landlord called Tony Rezko, has been convicted on fraud and corruption charges.

They also know the US is just as segregated as it was before Martin Luther King – in schools, streets, neighbourhoods, holidays, even in its TV-watching habits and its choice of fast-food joint. The difference is that it is now done by unspoken agreement rather than by law.

If Mr Obama’s election had threatened any of that, his feel-good white supporters would have scuttled off and voted for John McCain, or practically anyone. But it doesn’t. Mr Obama, thanks mainly to the now-departed grandmother he alternately praised as a saint and denounced as a racial bigot, has the huge advantages of an expensive private education. He did not have to grow up in the badlands of useless schools, shattered families and gangs which are the lot of so many young black men of his generation.

If the nonsensical claims made for this election were true, then every positive discrimination programme aimed at helping black people into jobs they otherwise wouldn’t get should be abandoned forthwith. Nothing of the kind will happen. On the contrary, there will probably be more of them.

And if those who voted for Obama were all proving their anti-racist nobility, that presumably means that those many millions who didn’t vote for him were proving themselves to be hopeless bigots. This is obviously untrue.

I was in Washington DC the night of the election. America’s beautiful capital has a sad secret. It is perhaps the most racially divided city in the world, with 15th Street – which runs due north from the White House – the unofficial frontier between black and white. But, like so much of America, it also now has a new division, and one which is in many ways much more important. I had attended an election-night party in a smart and liberal white area, but was staying the night less than a mile away on the edge of a suburb where Spanish is spoken as much as English, plus a smattering of tongues from such places as Ethiopia, Somalia and Afghanistan.

As I walked, I crossed another of Washington’s secret frontiers. There had been a few white people blowing car horns and shouting, as the result became clear. But among the Mexicans, Salvadorans and the other Third World nationalities, there was something like ecstasy.

They grasped the real significance of this moment. They knew it meant that America had finally switched sides in a global cultural war. Forget the Cold War, or even the Iraq War. The United States, having for the most part a deeply conservative people, had until now just about stood out against many of the mistakes which have ruined so much of the rest of the world.

Suspicious of welfare addiction, feeble justice and high taxes, totally committed to preserving its own national sovereignty, unabashedly Christian in a world part secular and part Muslim, suspicious of the Great Global Warming panic, it was unique.

These strengths had been fading for some time, mainly due to poorly controlled mass immigration and to the march of political correctness. They had also been weakened by the failure of America’s conservative party – the Republicans – to fight on the cultural and moral fronts.

They preferred to posture on the world stage. Scared of confronting Left-wing teachers and sexual revolutionaries at home, they could order soldiers to be brave on their behalf in far-off deserts. And now the US, like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World. How sad. Where now is our last best hope on Earth?

WHAT'S GOING ON?

Guest column by Robert Chapman, retired U.S. intelligence officer.


Even before the Cold War, the Soviet Union suppressed the freedom of the press in the countries it controlled as well as the Soviet Union itself. The public was deprived of truth which led to the West’s beaming VOA, RFE and BBC radio broadcasts to inform the Russians and Eastern Europeans. Thinking they knew what the listeners wanted, the broadcasts were of international happenings, but it was soon apparent the listeners craved to know what was happening in their own country.

At the time I wondered how awful it must be to not know what was happening in one’s own country; but after the past primary and presidential election, I know.

The past lingers with us; however, now more importantly, what will the future bring? The President-Elect’s cabinet choices are middle-of-the-road people, but outside of the secretary of state and the secretary of defense, what role will they play in changing our country?

The paramount question is whether the President-Elect will veer toward the center as his cabinet choices indicate or will he stick with his friends of 25 years and support the political philosophy they shared? He is indeed a Manchurian candidate. From his youngest days, from the time of his mother, he’s been immersed in far leftist, communist, Marxist ideology. Will he shake this off?

But there has never been a better time to go to the far left. Our economy is shattered. With globalization, jobs are gone. Factories are gone, the machinery of many shipped overseas. Skills are gone. Unemployment is going through the roof, and our debt reaches hopelessness. My fear is the situation is much worse than we know. “We’ve been done in.” The people want change and rightly so.

The juxtaposition of the stars foretells the President-Elect can do about anything he wants to do. By two steps he can implement his leftist ideology, if it’s still part of him, and change our country to one different from what we are. The first is to create jobs which are directly paid by the national government or by federal subsidies through the states. In effect, they become “federalized employment,” which creates a dependency by the jobholders upon the continuance of the administration or one like it. The troubling aspect is the President-Elect has talked about militia-type employment, the “National Civilian Security Force” as well as forming auxiliaries of Homeland Security, which normally are adjuncts of police states. Hopefully, this is not to be.

CHRIST-MAS DAY, 2008

In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.

He was in the beginning with God.
All things came to be through him,
and without him nothing came to be.

What came to be through him was life,
and this life was the light of the human race;
the light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness has not overcome it.

A man named John was sent from God,
He came for testimony, to testify to the light,
so that all might believe through him.
He was not the light, but came to testify to the light.
The true light, which enlightens everyone,
was coming into the world.

He was in the world,
and the world came to be through him,
but the world did not know him.
He came to what was his own,
but his own people did not accept him.

But to those who did accept him
he gave power to become children of God,
to those who believe in his name,
who were born not by natural generation
nor by human choice
nor by a man's decision but of God.

And the Word became flesh
and made his dwelling among us,
and we saw his glory,
the glory as of the Father's only Son,
full of grace and truth.

John testified to him and cried out, saying,
"This was he of whom I said,
The one who is coming after me ranks ahead of me
because he existed before me."

From his fullness we have all received,
grace in place of grace,
because while the law was given through Moses,
grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

No one has ever seen God.
The only Son, God,
who is at the Father's side,
has revealed him.

John I:1-18

FREEDOM OF RELIGION, REVISITED

Guest column by Glenn Neal, retired-lawyer-turned-writer



Merry Christmas!

I respectfully request that you read all the way to the end, then see my comments re: the illegality of the Supreme Court decisions restricting religious freedom.

(Note: the author of "T'was the month before Christmas" is unknown)

T'was the month before Christmas
When all through our land,
Not a Christian was praying
Nor taking a stand.
See the PC Police had taken away,
The reason for Christmas - no one could say.
The children were told by their schools not to sing,
About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.
It might hurt people's feelings, the teachers would say,
December 25th is just a 'Holiday.
Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit
Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!
CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-pod,
Something was changing, something quite odd!
Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa
In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.
As Targets were hanging their trees upside down,
At Lowe's the word Christmas - was no where to be found.
At K-Mart and Staples and Penny's and Sears
You won't hear the word Christmas; it won't touch your ears.
Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-si-ty
Are words that were used to intimidate me.
Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen
On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton!
At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter
To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.
And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith,
Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace.
The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded,
The reason for the season, stopped before it started.
So as you celebrate 'Winter Break' under your 'Dream Tree,'
Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.
Choose your words carefully, choose what you say,
Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS , not Happy Holiday!

Please, all Christians join together and wish everyone you meet MERRY CHRISTMAS. Christ is "The Reason" for the Christ-mas Season! --(Anonymous)

............

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another." --U.S. Supreme Court, Everson v. Board of Education.

There is a problem with that. It’s WRONG! The Constitution does not say that. The only two references to religion are the Freedom of Religion Clause in the First Amendment and a prohibition in Article VI against applying any religious test as a condition for holding public office under the federal Constitution.

Joseph Story[1] wrote,

In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others, presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife, and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. . . .Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments.[2] [Capitalization as in original].

The Supreme Court had no power over the control of religion in the states. The Court unlawfully seized the power to rule against freedom of religion in Everson v. Board of Education.[3] We didn’t protest. The unlawful power became de facto[4] power.

What if we disobey the Court and do what our conscience demands? There would be consequences, of course. But Christ did not promise that Christianity would be easy. Only that it would be worth it. Civil disobedience anyone?

-----------------------------------------------------------
[1] Joseph Story was a poet, scholar, prolific writer, Supreme Court Justice, and Harvard Law Professor. His Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) is still considered the standard treatise on the subject.
[2] Story, Book III, §1873
[3] 330 U.S. 1 (1947).
[4] In its legal definition, de facto “is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th affairs which must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed.

DON'T WASTE AN AMENDMENT

Guest column by Glenn Neal, retired-attorney-turned-writer


A website is raising the alarm in an attempt to stop the Ohio legislature from voting for a Constitutional Convention for the United States in the fear that it will become an open convention.[1] Their fears are unfounded. Article V of the Constitution permits the states to demand "a Convention for offering Amendments . . . [to] this Constitution" [emphasis added], and nothing more. Reinforcing that limitation is a law passed by Congress that the convention cannot consider anything that is not in the call for the convention. You can be sure the people in power will not give up any unless you strictly follow the letter of the law.

I could not confirm that thirty-two states have called for the convention--Google "constitutional convention" and you will come up with 448,000 hits. Do a Google search on "con con" (an abbreviation in the blogosphere for constitutional convention) and get 138,000,000 hits. Obviously, I did not check all of the sites. I'll continue to research this. It may be the subject of a future post.

What I did find is several states have proposed a convention for amending their own state constitutions; Illinois in particular is in the news right now because of Governor Blagojevich's arrest. And there are countries like the Philippians who want to amend their national constitutions.

Nonetheless, this provides an excuse for me to put in my own 2¢ worth: a convention to propose just a balanced budget amendment would be a horrendous waste.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, dissenting in Olmstead v. U.S. (1928), wrote,

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.

The balanced budget amendment is an important amendment but so is term limiting Congress; a more vital amendment is reigning in the unlimited power of the United States Supreme Court.

In the year 2000, Justice Scalia stated in his dissent in the Dickerson case that the Supreme Court had given itself the power to amend the Constitution. The only remarkable thing about Dickerson is the Court came out and openly stated (in lawyer-speak, of course) that it could amend the Constitution. In fact, it had been covertly amending the Constitution at least since the Warren Court of the 1950s.

It will never be possible to amend the Constitution fast enough and often enough to keep up with an illegitimate, activist Supreme Court. Of some ten thousand amendments proposed during the history of this nation, only twenty-seven have been ratified to become a part of the Constitution.

If several amendments compete for the public's attention, it diminishes the probability that any one of them will be adopted. Instead, the people should unite in support of a Convention for offering amendments under Article V. of the Constitution.

When the Supreme Court seized power in Marbury v. Madison (1803), the people, acquiesced and allowed it to happen. But the country still belongs to the people. The idea that this is a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" did not die when Abraham Lincoln was shot.. We can still do something about it.

The Constitution does NOT give the Court the right of judicial review (overturning an Act of Congress) nor does it give the Court the power to amend the Constitution. See, U. S. Const., Art. V here: http://www.usconstitution.net/. In drafting the Constitution the founders considered, and specifically rejected, the notion that the Court could overturn an Act of Congress. Nonetheless, the Court seized that power in Marbury v. Madison (1803).

We need to take the power back.