Round 25: 

bubloo		New York                                    Don Mcmahon P 1957
cardsfan		Midwest Progressivism            Ken Keltner, 3b-1938
italyprof		Appalachia John Stone OF 1928 and New England (from sooners07)		Rabbit Maranville SS 1912
shysters3		Dixie                                             Al Rosen 3B 1950
bagchucker		Atlantic Coast (from grayfoxx)   Charlie Keller OF 1939
dnmchill		Ohio                                      P  Ed Cushman 1885
cleonjones		Caribbean                          Mike Cuellar P 1964
mini157		Rest of the World              Kenji Johjima C 2006
crazyamos		Down the Mississippi     Pete Reiser, 3B, 1940
benfc		Illinois                                 Lefty Leifield P 1905
coloradokid		Stagecoach                       Duane Ward  - P  1988
grayfoxx		Pennsylvania (from bagchucker)  C Roy Campanella 1948
stroh23		Calfornia 1990 on               SS Troy Tulowitzki 2006
shawbigred		Texarkana                           OF Willie Davis 1960
sooners07		traded pick
chargingryno		California pre-1990          Dom Dimaggio -OF 1940

Posted by italyprof on 7/26/2014 6:00:00 PM (view original):
Practicing Law Without a License. I get it. Not so though, practicing being a political science professor. 

A writ of mandamus was at the center of the Marbury v. Madison case, involving a writ to force Madison who was in newly elected president Jefferson's cabinet  to put in office the zillions of conservative judges that Adams had appointed on his last day or so in office so they would block everything Jefferson and his democratic popular movement wanted to accomplish,. Madison saw it as an action attempting to subvert the outcome of the election of 1800, and refused to put the appointees  in office..

This case  was when the US Supreme Court claimed the right to interpret what was and what wasn't constitutional - a power that is actually not granted it in the Constitution. Mainly it was acting to block Jefferson's democratic policies, which is what the Supreme Court was put in there to do. And what it has mostly been doing ever since. 

Can't find a way to make a limerick in response, but my history of practicing and teaching constitutional law requires me to suggest your description of Marbury is a bit hyperbolic. But others may not be so interested in this issue. Maybe I'll send you a sitemail. developing that point later.

forward me a copy if you do, i will read the hell out of that thing

rats, there's always got to be a constitutional law professor in the group. this limits my ability to freely engage in hyperbole. 

Seriously, I would suggest you look at the hyperbole of the times on both sides - the Federalists saw Jefferson as a kind of communist - the word "democracy" was used similarly to the way that "socialist" is used on Fox now. Jefferson and Madison for their part were convinced that Adams was near monarch and that Alexander Hamilton was doing all he could to lead a counter-revolution to subvert the republic. So the actions of both sides at the time were considerably driven by their own belief in their own discourses which were certainly hyperbolic - neither side saw the other for what it really was. 

As to limiting or preventing democracy being a major factor in many aspects of the constitution itself, I would say serious reading Federalist no. 10 by Madison makes clear that he is going just that - preventing what he calls a "tyranny of the majority". 

I write haikus myself, and the one limerick here I posted was just for fun in reply to crazyamos' several actually good ones. But I really do defer to a constitutional law expert on the other stuff. 

Where is cleonjones? It is Saturday evening, what does he have an interesting life or something? I thought we were all extras on "Big Bang Theory". 

Okay, somebody come up with a league in which we can match the Supreme Court, the Presidency and Congress with a draft scenario.     Its all about baseball anyway.  

The hyperbole I was referencing wasn't related to the political parties, if that's what we think they were. I was speaking to the suggestion that Marbury was an unconstitutional power grab by the Court. You're right that the Constitution does not use the terms "judicial review " in Art. III. But it does describe itself as the Supreme Law of the Land and the 1st Congress (pre-Federalist) granted the power of judicial review over actions of a state. Marshall certainly went out of his way to make a case for judicial review of acts of Congress, unnecessarily so in that particular case, but on balance most scholars agree that the Court has some such power, disagreeing as to how aggressively it should be exercised. I would certainly agree that the Court has all too often misexercised the power--both presently and for 80 years after the Civil War. Some, of course believe that the Brown decision was wrong in principle, too. I am not among them.

sorry for the delay - Carribean (Cuba) Mike Cuellar P 1964

I sent the commish proxies for the next few days,
While I my life enters a strange little maze....

Can we start Round 26?

YES!

Round 26 Appalachia - Max Lanier (1938) P

Just for the professor, a little haiku:

Round 26: TEXARKANA PICK

Texas's Mike Adams
Firing fastballs for our squad
Since two-thousand-four.

Rnd 26 PA Guy Hecker P 1885 Wish I could get his '84 season Only a couple of seasons but lots of innings low era We'll see?

World  Eric Gagne  P  1999