All right, Thom, you brought up Federalist #78. Here's a long quote that goes against your argument on Marbury v. Madison (bold emphases mine):

"The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

"Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because [they are] contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged [by opponents of ratifying the Constitution] that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.

"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, [that is] contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, [that is] contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

"If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, [then] it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where [i.e. "because"] it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

I have to force myself to remember that Thom has people like Peter Ferrara on the show to demonstrate how to interact with them. Mr. Ferrara continually makes claims that are preposterous, then blows his stack when Thom doesn't simply concede. Last week it was a claim that Keynesian stimulus has never worked to address economic downturns, and only cutting taxes has. He has it, of course, exactly backwards, but thinks screaming will convince you to accept his rediculous claims.

This week it was taxes on capital, where he makes another laughable claim that capital is overtaxed because it's subject to tax, he claims, 4 times. This is a favorite theme of right-wingers. Of course, all income of all kinds is taxed multiple times: State and Federal income taxes, payroll tax, property tax, sales tax, excise tax, gas tax, to name several, but not all. Most capital subject to estate taxes have never been taxed, but that's too much detail for Ferrara. He refused to answer the question, instead falling back to the idea that capital and rich-peoples' passive income just shouldn't be taxed because it's bad for the economy! Only wage income of the unwashed middle and lower classes should be taxed, because the wages in passive income of rich people is different, special, better. And that's his argument today, reduced to its essence. It's absurd, but he's so blinded that he can't see logic or fact, or even answer a question.

Ferrara can't win on facts, so he blows his stack.