Marbury v. Madison: Wikis

  
  

Encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marbury v. Madison
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 11, 1803
Decided February 24, 1803
Full case name William Marbury v. James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States
Citations .5 U.S. 137 (more)
1 Cranch 137; 2 L. Ed.
^ His opinion in Marbury v Madison 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L.Ed.
  • Marbury v. Madison: A Progressive Critique 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC gladstone.uoregon.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ Madison , 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L. Ed.
  • Marbury v. Madison - Further Readings 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC law.jrank.org [Source type: Original source]

^ Madison 1 Cranch 137 , 2 L.Ed.
  • 82.03.05: Sources of Law: Related Cases for the Language: Minority Student 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC elsinore.cis.yale.edu [Source type: Original source]

60; 1803 U.S. LEXIS 352
Prior history Original action filed in U.S. Supreme Court; order to show cause why writ of mandamus should not issue, December 1801
Subsequent history None
Holding
.Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution.^ If Section 13 of the Judiciary Act is unconstitutional, does the Supreme Court have the power to declare it void?
  • Marbury vs Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.umkc.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ Judiciary Act of 1789 II .
  • The Background of Marbury v. Madison, First Essay 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.drbilllong.com [Source type: Original source]
  • The Background of Marbury v. Madison II--Events of 1802/03 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.drbilllong.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Based his appeal on the Judiciary Act of 1789.

.Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the Federal courts to interpret what the Constitution permits.^ When federal courts decide whether a law violates the Constitution.
  • IMA Hero: Reading Program U.S. Supreme Court 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.imahero.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Is this because the Court, and not Congress, is designated as the authoritative interpreter of the Constitution?
  • THE IRREPRESSIBLE MYTH OF MARBURY 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.freerepublic.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Supreme Court as the arbiter of Federal law.
  • April Fool! 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.datasync.com [Source type: Original source]

Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Marshall, joined by Paterson, Chase, Washington
Cushing and Moore took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. arts. I, III; Judiciary Act of 1789 § 13
Marbury v. .Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law.^ Supreme Court of the United States   February Term, 1803   ACTION k2 13k2 Where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit, or action at law, whenever that right is invaded.
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ The second section of the third article of the constitution gives this court appellate jurisdiction in all cases in law and equity arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, (except the cases in which it has original jurisdiction,) with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as congress shall make.
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ They appealed their case to the Supreme Court of the United States arguing that the laws they had been convicted under were unconstitutional because states have no power or authority to pass laws concerning sovereign Indian Nations.
  • Supreme Court Cases (Summary) 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Supreme Court Cases (Summary) 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC law.touro.edu [Source type: Original source]

.It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution.^ SUBJECT Judicial process -- United States.

^ Judicial Review is not explicitly written in the Constitution.
  • Marbury v. Madison: A Progressive Critique 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC gladstone.uoregon.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ Judicial review -- United States.

.This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed by President John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia but whose commission was not subsequently delivered.^ William Marbury never did get his commission as a justice of the peace for the District of Columbia.
  • Random House, Inc. Academic Resources | The Supreme Court by William H. Rehnquist 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.randomhouse.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court.
  • 82.03.05: Sources of Law: Related Cases for the Language: Minority Student 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC elsinore.cis.yale.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA k7 132k7 A justice of the peace, in the District of Columbia, does not hold his office at the will of the president.
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]

.Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents, but the court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, denied Marbury's petition, holding that the part of the statute upon which he based his claim, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional.^ Madison the Supreme Court was asked to issue a writ of mandamus against Secretary of State James Madison .
  • Marbury V Madison: Free Encyclopedia Articles at Questia.com Online Library 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.questia.com [Source type: Academic]

^ At the time Marshall was Chief Justice, his official title would have been "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States."
  • Chief Justice John Marshall on Flickr - Photo Sharing! 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.flickr.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Marshall was the chief justice during the case, Marbury v.
  • IMA Hero: Reading Program U.S. Supreme Court 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.imahero.com [Source type: Original source]

Marbury v. .Madison was the first time the Supreme Court declared something "unconstitutional," and established the concept of judicial review in the U.S. (the idea that courts may oversee and nullify the actions of another branch of government).^ In the early 1800s the Supreme Court established the principle of judicial review.
  • SSC - TEKS and TAKS - TEKS Glossary - Grade 8 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tea.state.tx.us [Source type: Original source]

^ Madison ; explain the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution, the concept of judicial review, and how Marbury v.
  • EDSITEment Lesson - Printer Friendly 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC edsitement.neh.gov [Source type: Original source]

^ He established the principle of judicial review, the power of the judiciary to determine that a law can be declared unconstitutional.
  • SSC - TEKS and TAKS - TEKS Glossary - Grade 8 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tea.state.tx.us [Source type: Original source]

.The landmark decision helped define the "checks and balances" of the American form of government.^ The landmark decision helped define the “checks and balances” of the American form of government.

^ Where is the check and balance to an unjust court decision?

^ It also helped codify the idea of separation of powers as a lasting hallmark of the American system of government.
  • Justice Stevens cites influence of Marbury v. Madison - CNN.com 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.cnn.com [Source type: News]

Contents

Background of the case

William Marbury
.In the presidential election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams, becoming the third President of the United States.^ United States, to be appointed by the President: .

^ Thomas Jefferson was the third president and John Marshall was the fourth Chief Justice of the United States.
  • http://robertwernick.com/articles/MARSHALL.htm 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC robertwernick.com [Source type: Original source]

^ John Adams, a Federalist, won the Presidential election in 1796.
  • WikiAnswers - What is Marbury v. Madison and why is it a landmark case in the history of the US Supreme Court 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC wiki.answers.com [Source type: Original source]

.Although the election was decided on February 17, 1801, Jefferson did not take office until March 4, 1801. Until that time, outgoing president Adams and the Federalist-controlled 6th Congress were still in power.^ In the election of 1800, the Federalists lost control of both Congress and the presidency to the Democratic-Republicans.
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

^ On the 36th vote, on February 17, 1801, the House voted to make Jefferson President.

^ Congress repealed it as Jefferson left office.
  • The James Madison Seminar on Teaching American History 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nas.org [Source type: Original source]

.During this lame-duck session, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801.^ (See Judiciary Acts of 1801 and 1802.

^ Judiciary Act of 1801 .
  • CRF-USA - Marbury 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.crf-usa.org [Source type: Academic]

^ In December 1801, Congress opened its session.

.This Act modified the Judiciary Act of 1789 in establishing ten new district courts, expanding the number of circuit courts from three to six, and adding additional judges to each circuit, giving the President the authority to appoint Federal judges and justices of the peace.^ In 1789, Congress established a three-tiered system of federal courts--the District, Circuit, and Supreme Courts.
  • Marbury v. Madison and the Establishment of Judicial Review 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.ucumberlands.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ Marshall presided as circuit judge and interpreted...
  • Marbury V Madison: Free Encyclopedia Articles at Questia.com Online Library 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.questia.com [Source type: Academic]

^ In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress set the number of Supreme Court justices at six.
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

.The act also reduced the number of Supreme Court justices from six to five, effective upon the next vacancy in the Court.^ Hence, the unusual trial in front of the six Supreme Court justices.
  • ⌘Untitled Document¥¥ßß≤≤≤±±±∞∞∞ØØØÆÆßþý≤≤±±±∞∞∞ØØØÆÆ≠ýýýý´´´™™™©©©®®≠≠ý¨¨´´´™™™©©©®®≠≠ý¨¸´´´™™™©©©®®ß߶¶¶•••§ §§£££¢¢ß߶¶¶•••§§§£££¢¢ß߶¶¶•••§§§£££¢¢°°†††üüüûûûùùùúú°°†††üüüûûûùùùúú°°†††üüüûûûùù ùúúõõöööôôôòòòóóóññõõöööôôôòòòóóóññõõöööôôôòòòóóóññïïîîîìììííí 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.wilsoncenter.org [Source type: Original source]

^ Examine the opinions of the Supreme Court justices .

^ In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress set the number of Supreme Court justices at six.
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

[1][2]
.On March 3, just before his term was to end, Adams, in an attempt to stymie the incoming Democratic-Republican Congress and administration, appointed 16 Federalist circuit judges and 42 Federalist justices of the peace to offices created by the Judiciary Act of 1801. These appointees, the infamous "Midnight Judges", were all located in the Washington and Alexandria area.^ (See Judiciary Acts of 1801 and 1802.

^ Laird, which upheld the repeal of the Federalist Judiciary Act of 1801.
  • Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: The Great Decision: Jefferson, Adams, Marshall, and the Battle for the Supreme Court 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.amazon.com [Source type: General]

^ Judiciary Act of 1801 .
  • CRF-USA - Marbury 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.crf-usa.org [Source type: Academic]

.One of them was William Marbury, a native of Maryland and a prosperous financier.^ One of these was William Marbury."
  • Justice Stevens cites influence of Marbury v. Madison - CNN.com 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.cnn.com [Source type: News]

^ William Marbury was one of those appointed.
  • FindLaw's Writ - Grossman: The 200th Anniversary of Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC writ.news.findlaw.com [Source type: Original source]

^ By the end of the year, Marbury had become one of the most powerful financial figures in Maryland - and was very wealthy to boot.
  • The Madison Era: Judicial Review: Marbury v. Madison: Marbury's Travail 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.ungardesign.com [Source type: Original source]

.An ardent Federalist, Marbury was active in Maryland politics and a vigorous supporter of the Adams presidency.^ Among the lame-duck appointments of departing President John Adams was the new chief justice of the United States, a fellow Federalist: John Marshall.
  • Cases & Controversies - Magazine - ABA Journal 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.abajournal.com [Source type: Original source]

^ For that serendipitous loyalty, the last Federalist President awarded Marbury an office.
  • The Madison Era: Judicial Review: Marbury v. Madison: Marbury's Travail 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.ungardesign.com [Source type: Original source]

^ But everything else in Marbury applies, and Marbury makes as much of earlier yet, in the political theory of federalism and state checks on national power set forth in The Federalist .
  • THE IRREPRESSIBLE MYTH OF MARBURY 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.freerepublic.com [Source type: Original source]

.He had been appointed to the position of justice of the peace in the District of Columbia.^ Congress modeled the office of justice of the peace for the District of Columbia after Maryland's version of the position.
  • The Madison Era: Judicial Review: Marbury v. Madison: Marbury's Travail 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.ungardesign.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Only James Marshall, John Marshall's brother and a judge on the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, thought the last action by Jefferson hypocritical, and contrary to the District of Columbia bill passed by Congress that had provided five-year terms for justices of the peace.
  • The Claremont Institute - The True Story of Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.claremont.org [Source type: Original source]
  • The Claremont Institute - The True Story of Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.claremont.org [Source type: Original source]

^ William Marbury never did get his commission as a justice of the peace for the District of Columbia.
  • Random House, Inc. Academic Resources | The Supreme Court by William H. Rehnquist 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.randomhouse.com [Source type: Original source]

The term for a justice of the peace was five years, and they were "authorized to hold courts and cognizance of personal demands of the value of 20 dollars".[3]
.On the following day, the appointments were approved en masse by the Senate; however, to go into effect, the commissions had to be delivered to those appointed.^ At the time of the change of Administration from Adams to Jefferson, several commissions of appointment to office had been signed but not delivered and were withheld on Jefferson's express instruction.
  • FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article III: Annotations pg. 13 of 25 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC caselaw.lp.findlaw.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Adams had appointed 42 such officials, the Senate frantically confirmed them, and Adams sat at his desk until late on his last night in office to sign their commissions.
  • The Supreme Court Historical Society - The History of the Court - The Marshall Court, 1801-1835 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.supremecourthistory.org [Source type: Original source]

^ This motion was supported by affidavits of the following facts: that notice of this motion had been given to Mr. Madison; that Mr. Adams, the late president of the United States, nominated the applicants to the senate for their advice and consent to be appointed justices of the peace of the district of Columbia; that the senate advised and consented to the appointments; that commissions in due form were signed by the said president appointing them justices, &c.
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]

.This task fell to John Marshall, who, even though recently appointed Chief Justice of the United States, continued as the acting Secretary of State at President Adams's personal request.^ United States, to be appointed by the President: .

^ By that act, it is enacted that the Secretary of State shall keep the seal of the United States, .

^ President Adams had appointed Marshall chief justice shortly after his defeat for re-election of 1800.
  • http://robertwernick.com/articles/MARSHALL.htm 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC robertwernick.com [Source type: Original source]

.While a majority of the commissions were delivered, it proved impossible for all of them to be delivered before Adams's term as president expired.^ At the time of the change of Administration from Adams to Jefferson, several commissions of appointment to office had been signed but not delivered and were withheld on Jefferson's express instruction.
  • FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article III: Annotations pg. 13 of 25 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC caselaw.lp.findlaw.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The commission was not delivered by the time the new president, Thomas Jefferson a Republican, took office.
  • 82.03.05: Sources of Law: Related Cases for the Language: Minority Student 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC elsinore.cis.yale.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ Before his appointment by President Adams in 1801, the Court’s six members wrote separate opinions, limiting the Court’s potential institutional strength.
  • ⌘Untitled Document¥¥ßß≤≤≤±±±∞∞∞ØØØÆÆßþý≤≤±±±∞∞∞ØØØÆÆ≠ýýýý´´´™™™©©©®®≠≠ý¨¨´´´™™™©©©®®≠≠ý¨¸´´´™™™©©©®®ß߶¶¶•••§ §§£££¢¢ß߶¶¶•••§§§£££¢¢ß߶¶¶•••§§§£££¢¢°°†††üüüûûûùùùúú°°†††üüüûûûùùùúú°°†††üüüûûûùù ùúúõõöööôôôòòòóóóññõõöööôôôòòòóóóññõõöööôôôòòòóóóññïïîîîìììííí 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.wilsoncenter.org [Source type: Original source]

As these appointments were routine in nature, Marshall assumed the new Secretary of State James Madison would see they were delivered, since "they had been properly submitted and approved, and were, therefore, legally valid appointments."[4] On March 4, 1801, Thomas Jefferson was sworn in as President. As soon as he was able, President Jefferson ordered Levi Lincoln, who was the new administration's Attorney General and acting Secretary of State until the arrival of James Madison, not to deliver the remaining appointments. .Without the commissions, the appointees were unable to assume the offices and duties to which they had been appointed.^ Adams had appointed 42 such officials, the Senate frantically confirmed them, and Adams sat at his desk until late on his last night in office to sign their commissions.
  • The Supreme Court Historical Society - The History of the Court - The Marshall Court, 1801-1835 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.supremecourthistory.org [Source type: Original source]

^ President Adams appointed William Marbury to the office and signed his commission, which was sealed by then-Secretary of State John Marshall.
  • The James Madison Seminar on Teaching American History 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nas.org [Source type: Original source]

^ Of consequence, the constitutional distinction between the appointment to an office and the commission of an officer who has been appointed, remains the same as if in practice the president had commissioned officers appointed by an authority other than his own.
  • Marbury v. Madison | John Marshall | 1803 | AMDOCS: Documents for the Study of American History 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.vlib.us [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]

.In Jefferson's opinion, the undelivered commissions, not having been delivered on time, were void.^ Because the commission had not been delivered, Jefferson chose to treat it as null and void.
  • 82.03.05: Sources of Law: Related Cases for the Language: Minority Student 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC elsinore.cis.yale.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ History: Adams announced the commissions of 42 justices of the peace, but Marbury’s was not delivered before Jefferson’s inauguration.

^ When James Madison, Jefferson's secretary of state, refused to deliver several commissions for new justices, they petitioned the Supreme Court to compel the executive to act.
  • A Federalist Stronghold: John Marshall's Supreme Court [ushistory.org] 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.ushistory.org [Source type: Academic]

[5]
.The newly sworn-in Democratic-Republican congress immediately set about voiding the Judiciary Act of 1801 with their own Judiciary Act of 1802 which reversed the act of 1801 so that the Judicial branch once again operated under the dictates of the original Judiciary Act of 1789.^ (See Judiciary Acts of 1801 and 1802.

^ In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress set the number of Supreme Court justices at six.
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Within weeks of the request, Congress, which was now controlled by the Democratic-Republicans, repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801.
  • WikiAnswers - What is Marbury v. Madison and why is it a landmark case in the history of the US Supreme Court 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC wiki.answers.com [Source type: Original source]

.In addition, it replaced the Court's two annual sessions with one session to begin on the first Monday in February, and "canceled the Supreme Court term scheduled for June of that year [1802] ...^ ONE Supreme Court session.
  • POLITICAL SCIENCE 313 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC campus.queens.edu [Source type: FILTERED WITH BAYES]

^ Supreme Court ends term with a bang .
  • John Paul Stevens: News & Videos about John Paul Stevens - CNN.com 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC topics.cnn.com [Source type: News]

^ BOTH Supreme Court sessions.
  • POLITICAL SCIENCE 313 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC campus.queens.edu [Source type: FILTERED WITH BAYES]

seeking to delay a ruling on the constitutionality of the repeal act until months after the new judicial system was in operation."[6]

Status of the judicial power before Marbury

Secretary of State James Madison was ordered by Jefferson to withhold the commissions.
.The power of judicial review was created in Marbury though the general idea has ancient roots.^ The importance of Marbury was the establishment of Judicial review.
  • POLITICO Forums:Politics: Obama fails to quell gay uproar - POLITICO.com 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC dyn.politico.com [Source type: FILTERED WITH BAYES]

^ The power of judicial review, first assumed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v.
  • SSC - TEKS and TAKS - TEKS Glossary - Grade 8 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tea.state.tx.us [Source type: Original source]

^ (See judicial review) Marbury v.
  • SSC - TEKS and TAKS - TEKS Glossary - Grade 8 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tea.state.tx.us [Source type: Original source]

The idea that courts could nullify statutes originated in England with Chief Justice Edward Coke's 1610 opinion in Dr. Bonham’s Case, 8 Co. Rep. 107a. .That decision arose under a statute of Parliament enabling the London College of Physicians to levy fines against anyone who violated their rules.^ It stated that in cases heard in the federal courts, the laws of the several states, except where the Constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be the rules of decision .
  • 82.03.05: Sources of Law: Related Cases for the Language: Minority Student 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC elsinore.cis.yale.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ Basically, Jefferson told the Court that if they wanted to rule against him, that was fine, but he didn’t have to listen because who would enforce their judgment.

^ In contrast, the Plyler problem involves an official who believes that a statute is constitutional in the face of a decision that it is not.
  • Sample Chapter for George, R.P., ed.: Great Cases in Constitutional Law. 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC press.princeton.edu [Source type: Original source]

The College accused a doctor of practicing without a license and fined him accordingly. .Coke found that their statutory powers violated "common right or reason" because "no person should be a judge in his own case."^ These cases were indicative of the Taney Court in that it was generally in favor of states rights, but also exercised federal judicial power.
  • The James Madison Seminar on Teaching American History 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nas.org [Source type: Original source]

^ They appealed their case to the Supreme Court of the United States arguing that the laws they had been convicted under were unconstitutional because states have no power or authority to pass laws concerning sovereign Indian Nations.
  • Supreme Court Cases (Summary) 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Supreme Court Cases (Summary) 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC law.touro.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ Marbury assured us that no other person should have the contract but Mr. Hughes and myself, and that he would write Mr. Hughes the next post to Alexandria, respecting the same.
  • The Madison Era: Judicial Review: Marbury v. Madison: Marbury's Travail 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.ungardesign.com [Source type: Original source]

[7]
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that Bonham's Case did not set a precedent in the United States to make common law supreme over statutory law:
[N]otwithstanding what was attributed to .Lord COKE in Bonham's Case, 8 Reporter, 115, 118a, the omnipotence of parliament over the common law was absolute, even against common right and reason.^ Colonial lawyers, most notably James Otis arguing the Writs of Assistance Case in Massachusetts (1761), had drawn upon Sir Edward Coke’s statement in Dr. Bonham’s Case (1610) that parliamentary statutes contrary to custom and right reason were invalid.

^ (C.P. 1609) (And it appears in our books, that in many cases, the common law will controul acts of parliament and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void; for when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will controul it and adjudge such Act to be void.
  • NHBA -Bar Journal Issue 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nhbar.org [Source type: Original source]

^ An English case in 1610 had intimated that an act of Parliament “against common right and reason” was void under the common law, and the English Privy Council was later empowered to invalidate colonial statutes that ran counter to the colonial charters or English law.
  • ⌘Untitled Document¥¥ßß≤≤≤±±±∞∞∞ØØØÆÆßþý≤≤±±±∞∞∞ØØØÆÆ≠ýýýý´´´™™™©©©®®≠≠ý¨¨´´´™™™©©©®®≠≠ý¨¸´´´™™™©©©®®ß߶¶¶•••§ §§£££¢¢ß߶¶¶•••§§§£££¢¢ß߶¶¶•••§§§£££¢¢°°†††üüüûûûùùùúú°°†††üüüûûûùùùúú°°†††üüüûûûùù ùúúõõöööôôôòòòóóóññõõöööôôôòòòóóóññõõöööôôôòòòóóóññïïîîîìììííí 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.wilsoncenter.org [Source type: Original source]

.The actual and practical security for English liberty against legislative tyranny was the power of a free public opinion represented by the commons.^ Public opinion would back Madison; the Republicans would wax triumphant; and another check on majority power would have been dissipated.
  • DCBA Brief, September 1997 Issue -  Chapter 13 - Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.dcba.org [Source type: Original source]

^ The logic of the notion that the doctrine of separation of powers necessitates some type of institutional policeman to enforce it actually militates against judicial review.
  • NHBA -Bar Journal Issue 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nhbar.org [Source type: Original source]

^ One of the most commonly used arguments against such a State power is the United States Supreme Court (US S CT) dicta opinion in Marbury v.
  • The Marbury v. Madison Mantra | Tenth Amendment Center 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tenthamendmentcenter.com [Source type: Original source]

[8]
.The idea that courts could declare statutes void was defeated in England with the Glorious Revolution of 1688, when King James II was removed and the elected Parliament declared itself supreme.^ In 1832, in response to an appeal by the Cherokee, Chief Justice John Marshall of the Supreme Court declared that it was unconstitutional for the state of Georgia to remove the tribe from their land.
  • SSC - TEKS and TAKS - TEKS Glossary - Grade 8 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tea.state.tx.us [Source type: Original source]

^ Oregon challenged the law, and the U.S. Supreme Court decided that Congress could not control the voting age for state elections.
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The Supreme Court has made certain allowances for statements that could be considered defamatory but are either made in reference to a public person or can be shown to be true.

.However, it continued to be known in the American colonies and in the bars of young states, where Coke's books were very influential.^ He acts, in this respect, as has been very properly stated at the bar, under the authority of law, and not by the instructions of the President.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]

^ The case made it to the very young Supreme Court , then headed by Chief Justice John Marshall , who had briefly served as Adams' Secretary of State.
  • James Madison (person)@Everything2.com 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC everything2.com [Source type: Original source]

^ He acts, in this respect, as has been very properly stated at the bar, under the authority of law, and not by the instructions of the president.
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC press-pubs.uchicago.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • madison - Google Scholar 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC scholar.google.com [Source type: Original source]
  • Primary Document: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC faculty.washington.edu [Source type: Original source]

.The doctrine was specifically enshrined in some state constitutions, and by 1803 it had been employed in both State and Federal courts in actions dealing with state statutes, but only insofar as the statutes conflicted with the language of state constitutions.^ United States Supreme Court 1803 .
  • DCBA Brief, September 1997 Issue -  Chapter 13 - Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.dcba.org [Source type: Original source]

^ States operate differently from Federal Courts .
  • http://www.campbell.edu/faculty/Slattery/gov229/14.htm 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.campbell.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ Only the people, not the courts can amend the state Constitution.
  • Boston.com / News / Special reports / Gay marriage 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.boston.com [Source type: Original source]

[9][10]
.Some legal scholars argue that the legal basis and concept of judicial review predate the case, and that Marbury merely formalized it.^ The importance of Marbury was the establishment of Judicial review.
  • POLITICO Forums:Politics: Obama fails to quell gay uproar - POLITICO.com 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC dyn.politico.com [Source type: FILTERED WITH BAYES]

^ This required a broader concept of judicial review than had been provided in Marbury.

^ Today, we call this concept judicial review .
  • James Madison (person)@Everything2.com 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC everything2.com [Source type: Original source]

.For example, Saikrishna Prakash and John Yoo point out, with respect to the ratification of the Constitution, that "no scholar to date has identified even one participant in the ratification fight who argued that the Constitution did not authorize judicial review of Federal statutes.^ In their recent paper on the origins of judicial review, Saikrishna Prakash and John Yoo echo the sentiments of Madison in THE FEDERALIST, No.
  • NHBA -Bar Journal Issue 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nhbar.org [Source type: Original source]

^ Scholars have debated whether the federal judicial power includes the power of judicial review.
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Saikrishna Prakash & John Yoo, supra n.
  • NHBA -Bar Journal Issue 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nhbar.org [Source type: Original source]

This silence in the face of the numerous comments on the other side is revealing."[11]
.However, it is important to note that nothing in the text of the Constitution explicitly authorized the power of judicial review, despite persistent fears voiced by Anti-federalists over the power of the new Federal court system.^ As we have already noted, judicial review is not explicitly mentioned in either the Federal Constitution or our New Hampshire Constitution.
  • NHBA -Bar Journal Issue 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nhbar.org [Source type: Original source]

^ The power of judicial review, first assumed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v.
  • SSC - TEKS and TAKS - TEKS Glossary - Grade 8 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tea.state.tx.us [Source type: Original source]

^ Section 4.1: The Constitution Establishes a federal system .

The concept was also laid out by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78:
.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, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution.^ How does the Constitution limit the power of legislative bodies?
  • EDSITEment Lesson - Printer Friendly 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC edsitement.neh.gov [Source type: Original source]

^ They contained the principles upon which this branch of our constitution was constructed.
  • Marbury v. Madison | John Marshall | 1803 | AMDOCS: Documents for the Study of American History 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.vlib.us [Source type: Original source]

^ The Marshall Court , and this decision in particular, established the principle of "judicial review" whereby Congressional laws and executive actions may be judged by the Supreme Court to be within the bounds of the Constitution.
  • A Federalist Stronghold: John Marshall's Supreme Court [ushistory.org] 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.ushistory.org [Source type: Academic]

.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.^ The Court praised the police officials for trying to bring guilty people to punishment but said that the police could not be aided by sacrificing the fundamental rights secured and guaranteed by the Constitution.
  • Supreme Court Cases (Summary) 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Supreme Court Cases (Summary) 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC law.touro.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ The members of a Constitutional Convention are the direct representatives of the people (1) .
  • A VIABLE plan to save our Constitutional Republic 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nolanchart.com [Source type: Original source]

.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.^ 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.
  • In Marbury vs Madison Jefferson Saw the Beginning of Judicial Tyranny 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.freerepublic.com [Source type: FILTERED WITH BAYES]

^ The Constitution, as an original act of self-government by the supreme authority - "We the People" - must be regarded as supreme law limiting all government .
  • THE IRREPRESSIBLE MYTH OF MARBURY 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.freerepublic.com [Source type: Original source]

^ If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative contrary to the constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
  • Marbury v. Madison | John Marshall | 1803 | AMDOCS: Documents for the Study of American History 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.vlib.us [Source type: Original source]

.The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.^ For example, he had written: ''The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.
  • FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article III: Annotations pg. 13 of 25 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC caselaw.lp.findlaw.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

^ If the Supreme Court makes an error when it interprets a law, or simply interprets a law in a manner with which Congress disagrees, Congress can pass a new law with language that corrects the Court's interpretation.
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

.A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.^ The constitution is one of them, and is in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as fundamental law.
  • NHBA -Bar Journal Issue 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nhbar.org [Source type: Original source]

^ A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law.
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

^ This javascript opens up a pop-up window with a Flash interactive on the page "A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.
  • EDSITEment Lesson - Printer Friendly 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC edsitement.neh.gov [Source type: Original source]

.It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.^ It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.
  • EDSITEment Lesson - Printer Friendly 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC edsitement.neh.gov [Source type: Original source]
  • In Marbury vs Madison Jefferson Saw the Beginning of Judicial Tyranny 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.freerepublic.com [Source type: FILTERED WITH BAYES]

^ It therefore belongs to them to ascertain [determine] its meaning as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Primary Document: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC faculty.washington.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • LEXIS-NEXIS� Academic 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC plaza.ufl.edu [Source type: Original source]

.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.^ If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between 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.''
  • FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article III: Annotations pg. 13 of 25 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC caselaw.lp.findlaw.com [Source type: Original source]

^ If there should happen to be an irreconcilable [conflicting] 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 [in Congress].
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

^ 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.
  • In Marbury vs Madison Jefferson Saw the Beginning of Judicial Tyranny 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.freerepublic.com [Source type: FILTERED WITH BAYES]

[12]

Relevant law

.In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.^ In the distribution of this power it is declared that "the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party.
  • madison - Google Scholar 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC scholar.google.com [Source type: Original source]
  • LEXIS-NEXIS� Academic 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC plaza.ufl.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ The Supreme Court shall ha v e original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party.

^ In the distribution of this power it is declared that 'the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party.
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]

.In all the other Cases before mentioned [within the judicial power of the United States], the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.^ The second section of the third article of the constitution gives this court appellate jurisdiction in all cases in law and equity arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, (except the cases in which it has original jurisdiction,) with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as congress shall make.
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ The Constitution defines the kinds of cases to which the "judicial power" applies, including cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

^ How can it even be possible that this is a Supreme Court issue in the United States?
  • The Volokh Conspiracy - Your Money or Your Land: Didden v. Village of Port Chester - An important Post-Kelo eminent domain case: 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC volokh.com [Source type: Original source]

 
— U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2
.The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after provided for; and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts [...] and writs of mandamus [...] to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.^ Madison the Supreme Court was asked to issue a writ of mandamus against Secretary of State James Madison .
  • Marbury V Madison: Free Encyclopedia Articles at Questia.com Online Library 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.questia.com [Source type: Academic]

^ As a result, the authority Congress gave to the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus "appears not to be warranted by the Constitution."
  • DCBA Brief, September 1997 Issue -  Chapter 13 - Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.dcba.org [Source type: Original source]

^ United States, to be appointed by the President: .

 
— Judiciary Act of 1789, § 13

The issue

.
Inscription on the wall of the Supreme Court Building from Marbury v.
^ One of the most commonly used arguments against such a State power is the United States Supreme Court (US S CT) dicta opinion in Marbury v.
  • The Marbury v. Madison Mantra | Tenth Amendment Center 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tenthamendmentcenter.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The power of judicial review, first assumed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v.
  • SSC - TEKS and TAKS - TEKS Glossary - Grade 8 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tea.state.tx.us [Source type: Original source]

^ Note that Senator Breckenridges speech was given on the very eve of the Supreme Court's decision in Marbury v.
  • NHBA -Bar Journal Issue 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nhbar.org [Source type: Original source]

Madison
, in which Chief Justice John Marshall outlined the concept of judicial review.
.There are three ways a case can be heard in the Supreme Court: (1) filing directly in the Supreme Court; (2) filing in a lower federal court, such as a district court, and appealing all the way up to the Supreme Court; (3) filing in a state court, appealing all the way up through the state's highest courts, and then appealing to the Supreme Court on an issue of federal law.^ The judicial branch, made up of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts, decides cases that arise under the laws.
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

^ There is no constitutional court and no constitutional, that is, supreme, law.
  • German Law Journal - Two Hundred Years of Marbury v. Madison: The Struggle for Judicial Review of Constitutional Questions in the United States and Europe 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.germanlawjournal.com [Source type: Original source]

^ There is no law or court case that invalidates Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
  • A VIABLE plan to save our Constitutional Republic 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nolanchart.com [Source type: Original source]

.The first is an exercise of the Court's original jurisdiction; the second and third are exercises of the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction.^ In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]

^ But first the court has to have jurisdiction.
  • Boston.com / News / Special reports / Gay marriage 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.boston.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Congress also controlled the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
  • The James Madison Seminar on Teaching American History 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nas.org [Source type: Original source]

.Because Marbury filed his petition for the writ of mandamus directly in the Supreme Court, the Court needed to be able to exercise original jurisdiction over the case in order to have the power to hear it.^ The case held that the U.S. Supreme Court had no original subject matter jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus, because the U.S. Constitution foreclosed it.
  • Boston.com / News / Special reports / Gay marriage 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.boston.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus.
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The power of judicial review, first assumed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v.
  • SSC - TEKS and TAKS - TEKS Glossary - Grade 8 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tea.state.tx.us [Source type: Original source]

.Marbury's argument is that in the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over petitions for writs of mandamus.^ The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus.
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Whether the Supreme Court can award the writ of mandamus in any case.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]

^ Judiciary Act of 1789, 587 which Marbury, and ultimately the Supreme Court, interpreted to authorize the Court to issue writs of mandamus in suits in its original jurisdiction.
  • FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article III: Annotations pg. 13 of 25 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC caselaw.lp.findlaw.com [Source type: Original source]

This raises several issues that the Supreme Court had to address:
  • Does Article III of the Constitution create a "floor" for original jurisdiction, which Congress can add to, or does it create an exhaustive list that Congress can't modify at all?
  • If Article III's original jurisdiction is an exhaustive list, but Congress tries to modify it anyway, who wins that conflict, Congress or the Constitution?
  • And, more importantly, who is supposed to decide who wins?
.In its answer to this last question, the Supreme Court formalizes the notion of judicial review.^ Supreme Court Decisions: Marbury V. Madison – The decision that established judicial review .

^ The Marshall Court , and this decision in particular, established the principle of "judicial review" whereby Congressional laws and executive actions may be judged by the Supreme Court to be within the bounds of the Constitution.
  • A Federalist Stronghold: John Marshall's Supreme Court [ushistory.org] 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.ushistory.org [Source type: Academic]

^ In 1803, fifteen years after adoption of the Constitution, the Supreme Court officially answered the question of whether the federal judiciary has the power of judicial review.
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

.In short, the constitutional issue on which Marbury v.^ It is important to understand that, at least at the time Marbury and Merrill were decided, issues of constitutional law were not the types of issue which were normally presented to a court for resolution.
  • NHBA -Bar Journal Issue 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nhbar.org [Source type: Original source]

^ Thus, as Marbury itself demonstrates, a court must have jurisdiction prior to addressing even constitutional issues.
  • Boston.com / News / Special reports / Gay marriage 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.boston.com [Source type: Original source]

^ In short, if Marbury 's reasoning is right, nearly all of our constitutional practice today is wrong.
  • THE IRREPRESSIBLE MYTH OF MARBURY 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.freerepublic.com [Source type: Original source]

.Madison
was decided was whether Congress could expand the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.^ Congress had acted to expand the original jurisdiction of the Court as stipulated by the Constitution, and that, said Marshall, it could not do.
  • DCBA Brief, September 1997 Issue -  Chapter 13 - Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.dcba.org [Source type: Original source]

^ Marbury decided to sue Madison in the Supreme Court.
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Congress cannot expand or decrease the Courts .
  • POLITICAL SCIENCE 313 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC campus.queens.edu [Source type: FILTERED WITH BAYES]

The decision

An engraving of Justice Marshall made by Charles-Balthazar-Julien Fevret de Saint-Mémin in 1808.
.On February 24, 1803, the Court rendered a unanimous (4-0) decision,[13] that Marbury had the right to his commission but the court did not have the power to force Madison to deliver the commission.^ Can the Court compel Secretary Madison to deliver it?
  • POLITICAL SCIENCE 313 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC campus.queens.edu [Source type: FILTERED WITH BAYES]

^ Court could not compel Madison to deliver it.
  • POLITICAL SCIENCE 313 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC campus.queens.edu [Source type: FILTERED WITH BAYES]

^ Supreme Court Decisions: Marbury V. Madison – The decision that established judicial review .

.Chief Justice Marshall wrote the opinion of the court.^ Chief Justice MARSHALL deli v ered the opinion of the Court.

^ Examine the opinions of the Supreme Court justices .

^ Majority Opinion was given by Chief Justice Marshall .
  • POLITICAL SCIENCE 313 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC campus.queens.edu [Source type: FILTERED WITH BAYES]

Marshall presented the case as raising three distinct questions:
  • Did Marbury have a right to the commission?
  • Do the laws of the country give Marbury a legal remedy?
  • Is asking the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus the correct legal remedy?
.Marshall quickly answered the first two questions affirmatively.^ The third proposition of Marbury reinforces the conclusion following from the first two points, and it is Marshall's distinctive contribution to the traditional argument for judicial review.
  • THE IRREPRESSIBLE MYTH OF MARBURY 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.freerepublic.com [Source type: Original source]

^ On the basis of this last statement, Marshall ruled that the embarrassing question as to what Lincoln had done with the commissions was irrelevant; he excused Lincoln from answering it.
  • AmericanHeritage.com / MARBURY v. MADISON The Case of the “Missing” Commissions 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.americanheritage.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Wagner declined to answer and Marshall upheld his refusal, saying that the question was not pertinent.
  • DCBA Brief, September 1997 Issue -  Chapter 13 - Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.dcba.org [Source type: Original source]

.He found that the failure to deliver the commission was "violative of a vested legal right."^ When a commission has been signed by the President, the appointment is made and it is a vested legal right.

^ It has already been stated that the applicant has, to that commission, a v ested legal right of which the Executi v e cannot depri v e him.

^ Marbury has a vested legal right meaning there is a judicial remedy.

.In deciding whether Marbury had a remedy, Marshall stated: "The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.^ This unit will serve to reaffirm the opinion given by Chief Justice Marshall in 1803: The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.
  • 82.03.05: Sources of Law: Related Cases for the Language: Minority Student 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC elsinore.cis.yale.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ The Go v ernment of the United States has been emphatically termed a go v ernment of laws, and not of men.

^ The Government of the United States is of the latter description.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]

.It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right."^ If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison | John Marshall | 1803 | AMDOCS: Documents for the Study of American History 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.vlib.us [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC press-pubs.uchicago.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • madison - Google Scholar 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC scholar.google.com [Source type: Original source]
  • LEXIS-NEXIS� Academic 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC plaza.ufl.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ Marbury has a vested legal right meaning there is a judicial remedy.

^ It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right."
  • FindLaw | Cases and Codes 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC caselaw.findlaw.com [Source type: Original source]

.One of the key legal principles on which Marbury relies is the notion that for every violation of a vested legal right, there must be a legal remedy.^ Marbury has a vested legal right meaning there is a judicial remedy.

^ I do not suggest that there must always be a remedy in civil damages for every legal wrong or that Marbury v.
  • FindLaw | Cases and Codes 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC caselaw.findlaw.com [Source type: Original source]

^ If that right is violated, do the laws afford a remedy?

.Marshall next described two distinct types of Executive actions: political actions, where the official can exercise discretion, and purely ministerial functions, where the official is legally required to do something.^ The conclusion from this reasoning is that, where the heads of departments are the political or confidential agents of the Executi v e, merely to execute the will of the President, or rather to act in cases in which the Executi v e possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable.

^ In the absence of immunity, the Court reasoned, executive officials would hesitate to exercise [457 U.S. 731, 745]   their discretion in a way "injuriously affect[ing] the claims of particular individuals," id., at 499, even when the public interest required bold and unhesitating action.
  • FindLaw | Cases and Codes 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC caselaw.findlaw.com [Source type: Original source]

^ But if a judge can simply elect whether to allow an issue to be presented, his election is hardly an exercise of his adjudicatory function; instead, he is making a political decision.
  • NHBA -Bar Journal Issue 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nhbar.org [Source type: Original source]

.Marshall found that delivering the appointment to Marbury was a purely ministerial function required by law, and therefore the law provided him a remedy.^ If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison | John Marshall | 1803 | AMDOCS: Documents for the Study of American History 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.vlib.us [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC press-pubs.uchicago.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • madison - Google Scholar 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC scholar.google.com [Source type: Original source]
  • LEXIS-NEXIS� Academic 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC plaza.ufl.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ It stated that in cases heard in the federal courts, the laws of the several states, except where the Constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be the rules of decision .
  • 82.03.05: Sources of Law: Related Cases for the Language: Minority Student 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC elsinore.cis.yale.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ If he has a right, and that right has been v iolated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?

.A federal court has a "special obligation to 'satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, but also that of the lower courts in a cause under review.'"^ Unless the Legislature makes an express transfer of jurisdiction concerning marriage, jurisdiction to determine all causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony resides with the Governor and Council under art.
  • Boston.com / News / Special reports / Gay marriage 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.boston.com [Source type: Original source]

^ But in 1803 (“Marbury vs. Madison,”) the Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Marshall, affirmed its own right of “judicial [ri’vju:] review.” It means that the Supreme Court can decide whether a law is constitutional or not.

^ After 1868, judicial review of state statutes and decisions has become more frequent in Supreme Court jurisprudence owing to the expanded functions of the federal government and the creation of American citizenship, with attendant rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

[14] .If a court does not have the power to hear a case, it will not issue dicta.^ These cases were indicative of the Taney Court in that it was generally in favor of states rights, but also exercised federal judicial power.
  • The James Madison Seminar on Teaching American History 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nas.org [Source type: Original source]

^ If the Court could not determine the constitutionality of federal law in such a case, it would be without power to overturn a state court decision upholding a state law in the face of an incompatible national law.
  • Marshall, Marbury, and Judicial Supremacy | First Things 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.firstthings.com [Source type: Original source]

^ This Court's decision in Goodridge does precisely the opposite-it usurps the Legislature's constitutional authority to determine the classes of cases relating to "marriage, divorce, and alimony" that the courts may hear.
  • Boston.com / News / Special reports / Gay marriage 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.boston.com [Source type: Original source]

.Consequently, with exceptions not applicable here, a federal court must decide whether it has jurisdiction before discussing the merits of the case.^ A court must first have jurisdiction to even consider an issue before it can decide the issue on the merits.
  • Boston.com / News / Special reports / Gay marriage 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.boston.com [Source type: Original source]

^ If a federal court can decide a case without interpreting the Constitution, it generally will do so.
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

^ How do courts decide on cases?
  • POLITICAL SCIENCE 313 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC campus.queens.edu [Source type: FILTERED WITH BAYES]

[15] .Chief Justice Marshall, however, did not address jurisdictional issues until addressing the first two questions presented above.^ Marshall was the chief justice genius.

^ Chief Justice Taney issued the writ.
  • Supreme Court Cases (Summary) 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Supreme Court Cases (Summary) 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC law.touro.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ While that case did address a constitutional question concerning court jurisdiction, not once did Chief Justice Marshall say that the Courts power to "say what the law is" was confined to constitutional directives addressed only to the courts.
  • Marshall, Marbury, and Judicial Supremacy | First Things 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.firstthings.com [Source type: Original source]

.Because of the canon of constitutional avoidance (i.e., where a statute can fairly be interpreted so as to avoid a constitutional issue, it should be so interpreted), courts generally deal with the constitutional issues only if necessary.^ If a federal court can decide a case without interpreting the Constitution, it generally will do so.
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Avoiding constitutional issues .
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Not only the courts but also Congress have a power and province of constitutional interpretation.
  • THE IRREPRESSIBLE MYTH OF MARBURY 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.freerepublic.com [Source type: Original source]

.In this case, the jurisdictional issue was a constitutional one.^ The Legislature has not enacted any similar provision to transfer jurisdiction in any other case of marriage such as the definitional issue in Goodridge.
  • Boston.com / News / Special reports / Gay marriage 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.boston.com [Source type: Original source]

^ In the final analysis, therefore, both the construct itself and the assignment of a particular case to one class or another constitutes a political decision.
  • NHBA -Bar Journal Issue 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nhbar.org [Source type: Original source]

^ The distinction between political questions within the purview of the executive, discretion and legal issues within the jurisdiction of the Court, was a constitutional principle he had articulated convincingly during the debate on the Robbins case in 1800.
  • DCBA Brief, September 1997 Issue -  Chapter 13 - Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.dcba.org [Source type: Original source]

[16]
.In analyzing the third question, Marshall first examined the Judiciary Act of 1789 and determined that the Act purported to give the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus.^ Courts original jurisdiction, does not mention the .
  • POLITICAL SCIENCE 313 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC campus.queens.edu [Source type: FILTERED WITH BAYES]

^ Whether the Supreme Court can award the writ of mandamus in any case?
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ First case in which the Supreme Court declared an act of Congress unconstitutional .
  • POLITICAL SCIENCE 313 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC campus.queens.edu [Source type: FILTERED WITH BAYES]

.Marshall then looked to Article III of the Constitution, which defines the Supreme Court's original and appellate jurisdictions (see Relevant Law above).^ Marshall did not say that the Supreme Court was the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution.
  • DCBA Brief, September 1997 Issue -  Chapter 13 - Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.dcba.org [Source type: Original source]

^ In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ The U.S. Supreme Court created this jurisdiction for itself through Marshall's interpretation of the Constitution in Marbury v.
  • German Law Journal - Two Hundred Years of Marbury v. Madison: The Struggle for Judicial Review of Constitutional Questions in the United States and Europe 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.germanlawjournal.com [Source type: Original source]

.Marbury had argued that the Constitution was only intended to set a floor for original jurisdiction that Congress could add to.^ The second section of the third article of the constitution gives this court appellate jurisdiction in all cases in law and equity arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, (except the cases in which it has original jurisdiction,) with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as congress shall make.
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ When 60,000 persons moved into one of the political subdivisions, that area could draft a constitution, submit it to Congress for approval, and become a state.
  • SSC - TEKS and TAKS - TEKS Glossary - Grade 8 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tea.state.tx.us [Source type: Original source]

^ The case held that the U.S. Supreme Court had no original subject matter jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus, because the U.S. Constitution foreclosed it.
  • Boston.com / News / Special reports / Gay marriage 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.boston.com [Source type: Original source]

.Marshall disagreed and held that Congress does not have the power to modify the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.^ Where does Congress get the power to make laws?
  • 82.03.05: Sources of Law: Related Cases for the Language: Minority Student 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC elsinore.cis.yale.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ Congress also controlled the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
  • The James Madison Seminar on Teaching American History 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nas.org [Source type: Original source]

^ Holding: Congress cannot expand the original jurisdiction of the court.

.Consequently, Marshall found that the Constitution and the Judiciary Act conflict.^ Marshall ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional and found that he was without authority to issue a court order to make the Secretary of State, James Madison, deliver the commission to Marbury.
  • 82.03.05: Sources of Law: Related Cases for the Language: Minority Student 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC elsinore.cis.yale.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ Absolute immunity for a President for acts within the official duties of the Chief Executive is either to be found in the constitutional separation of powers or it does not exist.
  • FindLaw | Cases and Codes 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC caselaw.findlaw.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Congress had acted to expand the original jurisdiction of the Court as stipulated by the Constitution, and that, said Marshall, it could not do.
  • DCBA Brief, September 1997 Issue -  Chapter 13 - Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.dcba.org [Source type: Original source]

.This conflict raised the important question of what happens when an Act of Congress conflicts with the Constitution.^ If there should happen to be an irreconcilable [conflicting] 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 [in Congress].
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

^ That there may be such cases is not to be questioned; but that every act of duty, to be performed in any of the great departments of government, constitutes such a case is not to be admitted.
  • LEXIS-NEXIS� Academic 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC plaza.ufl.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ Is it not truly astonishing that the Constitution, in its abundant care to define the powers of each department, should have omitted so important a power as that of the courts to nullify all the acts of Congress, which, in their opinion, were contrary to the Constitution?
  • NHBA -Bar Journal Issue 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nhbar.org [Source type: Original source]

.Marshall answered that Acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution are not law and the Courts are bound instead to follow the Constitution, affirming the principle of judicial review.^ In the early 1800s the Supreme Court established the principle of judicial review.
  • SSC - TEKS and TAKS - TEKS Glossary - Grade 8 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tea.state.tx.us [Source type: Original source]

^ This is constitutional legal review of the decisions of courts.
  • THE IRREPRESSIBLE MYTH OF MARBURY 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.freerepublic.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The job of Congress is make laws to enforce the principles of the Constitution.
  • 82.03.05: Sources of Law: Related Cases for the Language: Minority Student 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC elsinore.cis.yale.edu [Source type: Original source]

.In support of this position Marshall looked to the nature of the written Constitution—there would be no point of having a written Constitution if the courts could just ignore it.^ It is the fact of having a written constitution, and the nature of written constitutionalism, that does the work.
  • THE IRREPRESSIBLE MYTH OF MARBURY 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.freerepublic.com [Source type: Original source]

^ There would be no "legislative choice."
  • The Madison Era: Judicial Review: Marbury v. Madison: Marbury's Travail 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.ungardesign.com [Source type: Original source]

^ There is no constitutional court and no constitutional, that is, supreme, law.
  • German Law Journal - Two Hundred Years of Marbury v. Madison: The Struggle for Judicial Review of Constitutional Questions in the United States and Europe 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.germanlawjournal.com [Source type: Original source]

."To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"^ To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC press-pubs.uchicago.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • madison - Google Scholar 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC scholar.google.com [Source type: Original source]
  • LEXIS-NEXIS� Academic 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC plaza.ufl.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • THE IRREPRESSIBLE MYTH OF MARBURY 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.freerepublic.com [Source type: Original source]

^ It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison | John Marshall | 1803 | AMDOCS: Documents for the Study of American History 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.vlib.us [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC supct.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC press-pubs.uchicago.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • LEXIS-NEXIS� Academic 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC plaza.ufl.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • THE IRREPRESSIBLE MYTH OF MARBURY 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.freerepublic.com [Source type: Original source]

^ To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if those limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?
  • Marbury v. Madison | John Marshall | 1803 | AMDOCS: Documents for the Study of American History 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.vlib.us [Source type: Original source]

[17] .Marshall also argued that the very nature of the judicial function requires courts to make this determination.^ Marshall claims the power of judicial review for the courts by arguing that this .
  • POLITICAL SCIENCE 313 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC campus.queens.edu [Source type: FILTERED WITH BAYES]

^ Despite Marshalls determination to shield the Court from partisan politics, the High Federalists were unwilling to let matters rest.
  • DCBA Brief, September 1997 Issue -  Chapter 13 - Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.dcba.org [Source type: Original source]

^ It would be surprising if President Jefferson had not argued strongly for such immunity from judicial process, particularly in a confrontation with Chief Justice Marshall.
  • Nixon v. Fitzgerald 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC neuro.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • FindLaw | Cases and Codes 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC caselaw.findlaw.com [Source type: Original source]

.Since it is a court's duty to decide cases, courts have to be able to decide what law applies to each case.^ Marshall stressed the duty of judges to apply the law to cases before them.

^ This is the process of deciding what a law means and how it applies in a specific case.
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The Constitution defines the kinds of cases to which the "judicial power" applies, including cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

.Therefore, if two laws conflict with each other, a court must decide which law applies.^ If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operations of each.
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

^ If two laws conflict with each other the courts must decide on the operation of each.
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.
  • Marbury v. Madison | John Marshall | 1803 | AMDOCS: Documents for the Study of American History 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.vlib.us [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC press-pubs.uchicago.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • madison - Google Scholar 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC scholar.google.com [Source type: Original source]
  • LEXIS-NEXIS� Academic 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC plaza.ufl.edu [Source type: Original source]

[18] Finally, Marshall pointed to the judge's oath requiring them to uphold the Constitution, and to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which lists the "Constitution" before the "laws of the United States." Part of the core of this reasoning is found in the following statements from the decision:
.It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is.^ It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department, .
  • POLITICAL SCIENCE 313 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC campus.queens.edu [Source type: FILTERED WITH BAYES]

^ ''It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
  • FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article III: Annotations pg. 13 of 25 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC caselaw.lp.findlaw.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Madison , 1 Cranch 137 (1803) , that '[it] is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.'
  • http://www.wjopc.com/site/constitutional/chenoweth.html 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.wjopc.com [Source type: Original source]

.Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule.^ Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule.
  • Marbury v. Madison | John Marshall | 1803 | AMDOCS: Documents for the Study of American History 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.vlib.us [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC press-pubs.uchicago.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • madison - Google Scholar 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC scholar.google.com [Source type: Original source]
  • LEXIS-NEXIS� Academic 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC plaza.ufl.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC supct.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ Those who apply the law to particular instances - and execution of the law is a quintessential example of applying the law to particular cases - must of necessity expound and interpret the law in the course of performing such duties.
  • THE IRREPRESSIBLE MYTH OF MARBURY 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.freerepublic.com [Source type: Original source]

.If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.^ If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operations of each.
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

^ If two laws conflict with each other the courts must decide on the operation of each.
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.
  • FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article III: Annotations pg. 13 of 25 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC caselaw.lp.findlaw.com [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC press-pubs.uchicago.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • madison - Google Scholar 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC scholar.google.com [Source type: Original source]
  • LEXIS-NEXIS� Academic 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC plaza.ufl.edu [Source type: Original source]

.So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case.^ If then, the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
  • Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC press-pubs.uchicago.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case.
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • madison - Google Scholar 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC scholar.google.com [Source type: Original source]

^ If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]

.This is of the very essence of judicial duty.^ This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • madison - Google Scholar 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC scholar.google.com [Source type: Original source]

^ This is of the v ery essence of judicial duty.

^ This is of the very essence of judicial duty."
  • In Marbury vs Madison Jefferson Saw the Beginning of Judicial Tyranny 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.freerepublic.com [Source type: FILTERED WITH BAYES]

.If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.^ Marshall stressed that "the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of legislature.
  • SSC - TEKS and TAKS - TEKS Glossary - Grade 8 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tea.state.tx.us [Source type: Original source]

^ If then, the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
  • Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC press-pubs.uchicago.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]

.Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law [e.g., the statute or treaty].^ In fact, the same arguments that Marshall uses to develop the proposition of independent judicial interpretation tend to support the conclusion that the other branches are similarly competent to interpret the Constitution and likewise not bound by the erroneous interpretations of their fellow branches : Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.
  • THE IRREPRESSIBLE MYTH OF MARBURY 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.freerepublic.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Those, then, who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.
  • madison - Google Scholar 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC scholar.google.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The Constitution is paramount law, and must take precedence (so to speak) over precedents that depart from it.
  • THE IRREPRESSIBLE MYTH OF MARBURY 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.freerepublic.com [Source type: Original source]

.This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.^ This doctrine would sub v ert the v ery foundation of all written Constitutions.

^ This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]

^ This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC press-pubs.uchicago.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • madison - Google Scholar 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC scholar.google.com [Source type: Original source]
  • LEXIS-NEXIS� Academic 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC plaza.ufl.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • THE IRREPRESSIBLE MYTH OF MARBURY 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.freerepublic.com [Source type: Original source]

[19]
."In denying his request, the Court held that it lacked jurisdiction because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act passed by Congress in 1789, which authorized the Court to issue such a writ, was unconstitutional and thus invalid."^ The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus.
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Judiciary Act of 1789, 587 which Marbury, and ultimately the Supreme Court, interpreted to authorize the Court to issue writs of mandamus in suits in its original jurisdiction.
  • FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article III: Annotations pg. 13 of 25 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC caselaw.lp.findlaw.com [Source type: Original source]

^ In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress set the number of Supreme Court justices at six.
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

[20] .Marbury never became a Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia.^ After initially determining that Marbury, the petitioner, had a right to a writ of mandate, to compel Secretary of State Madison to issue his commission as a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia, he reached his second inquiry, which was: "if he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?"
  • The Jurisprudence of Access to Justice 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.seanet.com [Source type: Original source]

^ At the last term, on the affidavits then read and filed with the clerk, a rule was granted in this case requiring the Secretary of State to show cause why a mandamus [p154] should not issue directing him to deliver to William Marbury his commission as a justice of the peace for the county of Washington, in the District of Columbia.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA k7 132k7 A justice of the peace, in the District of Columbia, does not hold his office at the will of the president.
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]

[21]

Criticism

At the time Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning in this case, saying that if this view of judicial power became accepted, it would be "placing us under the despotism of an oligarchy."[22]
.A minority of legal scholars have raised questions about the logic Marshall used in determining the Judiciary Act unconstitutional, and hence the legitimacy of judicial review.^ Whatever Marshall said about judicial review was dicta.
  • La Vie en Rose: Jeremy Waldron and Richard Fallon’s Meander Through the Wonderland of Judicial Review 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.cardozolawreview.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Madison , in which Chief Justice Marshall famously announced the doctrine of judicial review.

^ Indeed, the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801 provoked a full-scale debate in Congress about the legitimacy of judicial review under the Federal Constitution.
  • NHBA -Bar Journal Issue 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nhbar.org [Source type: Original source]

.They reason that Marshall selectively quoted the Judiciary Act, interpreting it to grant the Supreme Court the power to hear writs of mandamus on original jurisdiction.^ The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus.
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Whether the Supreme Court can award the writ of mandamus in any case?
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ Whether the Supreme Court can award the writ of mandamus in any case.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]

[23] .These scholars argue that there is little connection between the notion of original jurisdiction and the Supreme Court, and note that the Act seems to affirm the Court's power to exercise only appellate jurisdiction.^ In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ Courts original jurisdiction, does not mention the .
  • POLITICAL SCIENCE 313 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC campus.queens.edu [Source type: FILTERED WITH BAYES]

^ There may be an appellate or superior court, and sometimes a state supreme court.
  • 82.03.05: Sources of Law: Related Cases for the Language: Minority Student 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC elsinore.cis.yale.edu [Source type: Original source]

[24] .Furthermore, it has been argued that the Supreme Court should have been able to issue the writ on original jurisdiction based on the fact that Article III of the Constitution granted it the right to review on original jurisdiction "all cases affecting . . .^ The case held that the U.S. Supreme Court had no original subject matter jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus, because the U.S. Constitution foreclosed it.
  • Boston.com / News / Special reports / Gay marriage 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.boston.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The Supreme Court opinion in the case, Scheidler v.

^ Whether the Supreme Court can award the writ of mandamus in any case?
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]

public ministers and consuls," and that .James Madison, Secretary of State at the time and defendant of the suit, should have fallen into that category of a "public minister [or] consul."^ State at the time of the decision was Madison.

^ Marbury’s signed and sealed commission remained undelivered when the new secretary of state, James Madison, took office.

^ The law would seem to contemplate that it should be made to the secretary of state, since it directs the secretary to affix the seal to the commission after it shall have been signed by the president.
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • madison - Google Scholar 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC scholar.google.com [Source type: Original source]

[25]
.Questions have also frequently been raised about the logic of Marshall's argument for judicial review, for example by Alexander Bickel in his book The Least Dangerous Branch.^ Whatever Marshall said about judicial review was dicta.
  • La Vie en Rose: Jeremy Waldron and Richard Fallon’s Meander Through the Wonderland of Judicial Review 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.cardozolawreview.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Carried to its logical conclusion, this meant that the life, liberty, and property of citizens depended upon the exercise of judicial review as a constitutional check on legislative discretion.

^ Alexander Bickel , writing more than forty years ago in his classic book, The Least Dangerous Branch , made this same observation about Marbury 's logic, but went exactly the wrong way with it.
  • THE IRREPRESSIBLE MYTH OF MARBURY 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.freerepublic.com [Source type: Original source]

.Bickel argues that Marshall's argument implies an unrealistically mechanical view of jurisprudence, one which suggests that the Court has an absolute duty to strike down every law it finds violative of the Constitution.^ And then, the critical link in his argument: The Constitution was law.
  • DCBA Brief, September 1997 Issue -  Chapter 13 - Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.dcba.org [Source type: Original source]

^ The purpose of the lawsuit was to give the Supreme Court a chance to rule whether the income tax was lawful under the Constitution.
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

^ If the Legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]

.Under Marshall's conception of the judicial process in Marbury, judges themselves have no independent agency and can never take into account the consequences of their actions when deciding cases—a notion that has been attacked by Richard Posner.^ It was at first doubted whether the action of detinue was not a specific legal remedy for the commission which has been withheld from Mr. Marbury; in which case a mandamus would be improper.
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ How then can his office exempt him from this particular mode of deciding on the legality of his conduct, if the case be such a case as would, were any other individual the party complained of, authorize the process?
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • LEXIS-NEXIS� Academic 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC plaza.ufl.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ Thomas Jefferson, the President when Marbury was decided, was actually strongly opposed to Judicial Review during the forming of our Consitution and also after this decision.

.More generally, Marshall's argument for the notion of a judicial obligation to strike down laws "repugnant to the constitution" presupposes some sort of underlying meaning to the text of the U.S. Constitution which judges can divine, a notion contested by scholars Paul Brest and Duncan Kennedy, among others, as well as Posner.^ Marshall noted that the text of the Constitution was precise.
  • DCBA Brief, September 1997 Issue -  Chapter 13 - Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.dcba.org [Source type: Original source]

^ And then, the critical link in his argument: The Constitution was law.
  • DCBA Brief, September 1997 Issue -  Chapter 13 - Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.dcba.org [Source type: Original source]

^ The Marshall Court , and this decision in particular, established the principle of "judicial review" whereby Congressional laws and executive actions may be judged by the Supreme Court to be within the bounds of the Constitution.
  • A Federalist Stronghold: John Marshall's Supreme Court [ushistory.org] 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.ushistory.org [Source type: Academic]

.Marbury can also be criticized on grounds that it was improper for the Court to consider any issues beyond jurisdiction.^ It also dealt with the issue of federal jurisdiction—that is, whether diversity of citizenship conferred jurisdiction on the lower federal court over slavery’s freedom suits.

^ Judiciary Act of 1789, 587 which Marbury, and ultimately the Supreme Court, interpreted to authorize the Court to issue writs of mandamus in suits in its original jurisdiction.
  • FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article III: Annotations pg. 13 of 25 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC caselaw.lp.findlaw.com [Source type: Original source]

^ On the other hand, if the Court did not issue the writ to which Marbury was entitled, and which was unmistakably provided for by statute, the judiciary would be deemed a paper tiger.
  • DCBA Brief, September 1997 Issue -  Chapter 13 - Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.dcba.org [Source type: Original source]

.After concluding that the Court lacked jurisdiction in the case, the further review regarding the substantive issues presented was arguably improper.^ The Legislature has not enacted any similar provision to transfer jurisdiction in any other case of marriage such as the definitional issue in Goodridge.
  • Boston.com / News / Special reports / Gay marriage 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.boston.com [Source type: Original source]

^ The first constraint is that judicial review may only be exercised in the context of a courts adjudication of a case or controversy.
  • NHBA -Bar Journal Issue 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nhbar.org [Source type: Original source]

^ Goodridge presented a question entirely separate from those over which the court has jurisdiction.
  • Boston.com / News / Special reports / Gay marriage 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.boston.com [Source type: Original source]

[26] .Also, it has been argued that Justice Marshall should have recused himself on the grounds that he was still acting Secretary of State at the time the commissions were to be delivered and it was his brother, James Marshall, who was charged with delivering a number of the commissions.^ His commission was confirmed by the Senate and signed and sealed by acting Secretary of State Marshall.
  • 82.03.05: Sources of Law: Related Cases for the Language: Minority Student 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC elsinore.cis.yale.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ He was acting as Secretary of State at the time when this transaction happened.
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ Each commission was then countersigned by Secretary of State John Marshall.
  • The Madison Era: Judicial Review: Marbury v. Madison: Marbury's Travail 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.ungardesign.com [Source type: Original source]

[27]
.Because the Constitution lacks a clear statement authorizing the Federal courts to nullify the acts of coequal branches, critics contend that the argument for judicial review must rely on a significant gloss on the Constitution's terms.^ And then, the critical link in his argument: The Constitution was law.
  • DCBA Brief, September 1997 Issue -  Chapter 13 - Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.dcba.org [Source type: Original source]

^ The act to establish the judicial courts of the United States authorizes the Supreme Court .

^ The Federal Constitutional Court has never denied this.
  • German Law Journal - Two Hundred Years of Marbury v. Madison: The Struggle for Judicial Review of Constitutional Questions in the United States and Europe 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.germanlawjournal.com [Source type: Original source]

Despite such criticisms of Marbury v. .Madison, judicial review has been accepted in the American legal community.^ Madison and Judicial Review (1989).

^ The point is that the more obvious it is that the judiciary is acting to defend its own turf, the more likely it is that its exercise of judicial review will be accepted as legitimate.
  • NHBA -Bar Journal Issue 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nhbar.org [Source type: Original source]

^ Marbury stands as the classic expression of judicial review in American constitutional law.

See also

Notes and references

  1. ^ Federal Judicial History, The Judiciary Act of 1801— Historical Note 2 Stat.89
  2. ^ Judiciary Act of 1801
  3. ^ Ch.6, Sec. 4, Judiciary Act of 1801
  4. ^ Sec. 3d, Marbury v. Madison,AMDOCS: www.vlib.us.
  5. ^ Pohlman, H. L. (2005). Constitutional Debate in Action: Governmental Powers. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 21. ISBN 0742535932.  
  6. ^ Federal Judicial History, The Judiciary Act of 1802— Historical Note2 Stat. 156
  7. ^ Coke's decision in the Bonham case, retrieved 2/12/07.
  8. ^ Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884)
  9. ^ (See, e.g., Bayard v. Singleton, 1 NC (Martin) 5 (1787); Whittington v. Polk, 1 H. & J. 236 (Md.Gen. 1802) (Samuel Chase, J.); State v. Parkhurst, 9 N.J.L. 427 (N.J. 1802); Respublica v. Duquet, 2 Yeates 493 (Pa. 1799); Williams Lindsay v. East Bay Street Com’rs, 2 Bay (S.C.L.) 38 S.C.Const.App. 1796)(Thomas Waties, J.).; Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dallas (3 U.S.) 199 (1796); Calder v. Bull, 3 Dallas (3 U.S.) 386 (1798); Cooper v. Telfair, 4 Dallas (4 U.S.) 14 (1800); Vanhorne’s Lessee v. Dorrance, 28 F. Cas. 1012, 2 Dallas (2 U.S.) 304; 1 L. Ed. 391; C. Pa. 1795).)
  10. ^ Fletcher, George P.; Sheppard, Steve (2004). American Law in Global Perspective: The Basics. Oxford University Press. pp. 132–134. ISBN 0195167236.  
  11. ^ Yoo, John C.; Prakash, Saikrishna (2003). "The Origins of Judicial Review". University of Chicago Law Review 69. doi:10.2139/ssrn.426860.  
  12. ^ Full text of Federalist No. 78 from thomas.loc.gov
  13. ^ Due to illness, Justices William Cushing and Alfred Moore did not sit for oral argument or participate in the Court's decision.
  14. ^ Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986) (quoting Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237, 244 (1934)); accord Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998)
  15. ^ See Irving v. United States, 162 F.3d 154, 160 (1st Cir. 1998) (en banc), admonishing that the federal courts "have an affirmative obligation to examine jurisdictional concerns on their own initiative" even if the parties have neglected them; Berner v. Delahanty, 129 F.3d 20, 23 (1st Cir. 1997), noting "that a court should first confirm the existence of rudiments such as jurisdiction . . . before tackling the merits of a controverted case").
  16. ^ Supreme Court History: The Court and Democracy, Marbury v. Madison, pbs.org, retrieved 2/12/07
  17. ^ 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) at 176.
  18. ^ Id. at 177.
  19. ^ 5 U.S. at 177-78.
  20. ^ Marbury v. Madison. In Encyclopaedia Britannica.
  21. ^ Henretta, James A.; David Brody, and Lynn Dumenil (2007). America's History: Volume 1: To 1877 (6th ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's. pp. 218–219. ISBN 9780312452858.  
  22. ^ James Taranto, Leonard Leo (2004). Presidential Leadership. Wall Street Journal Books. http://books.google.com/books?id=zxBAnuWpg5kC. Retrieved 2008-10-20.  
  23. ^ Reinstein, Robert J. (2004-04-01). "Marbury's Myths: John Marshall, Judicial Review and the Rule of Law". bepress Legal Series. http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/230.   Working Paper 230.
  24. ^ Full text of the Judiciary Act of 1789
  25. ^ Stone, Geoffrey R.; et al. (2005). Constitutional Law (5th ed.). New York: Aspen Publishers. pp. 29–51. ISBN 073555014X.  
  26. ^ Chemerinsky, Erwin (2006). Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (3rd ed.). New York: Aspen Publishers. pp. 41. ISBN 073555787X.  
  27. ^ Sullivan, Kathleen M.; Gunther, Gerald (2007). Constitutional Law. New York: Foundation Press. ISBN 9781599412467.  

Further reading

.
  • Smith, Jean Edward (1996).^ Jean Edward Smith, the author of John Marshall - Definer of a Nation, is a Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto.
    • DCBA Brief, September 1997 Issue -  Chapter 13 - Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.dcba.org [Source type: Original source]

    .John Marshall: Definer Of A Nation.^ Jean Edward Smith, the author of John Marshall - Definer of a Nation, is a Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto.
    • DCBA Brief, September 1997 Issue -  Chapter 13 - Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.dcba.org [Source type: Original source]

    ^ John Marshall - Definer of a Nation Chapter 13 - Marbury v.
    • DCBA Brief, September 1997 Issue -  Chapter 13 - Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.dcba.org [Source type: Original source]

    ^ In 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall continued to define the limits of the U. S. Constitution and of the authority of the federal and state governments.
    • SSC - TEKS and TAKS - TEKS Glossary - Grade 8 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tea.state.tx.us [Source type: Original source]

    Owl Books. .ISBN 080505510X.  
  • Smith, Jean Edward (1989).^ Jean Edward Smith, the author of John Marshall - Definer of a Nation, is a Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto.
    • DCBA Brief, September 1997 Issue -  Chapter 13 - Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.dcba.org [Source type: Original source]

    The Constitution And American Foreign Policy. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company. ISBN 0314423176.  
  • Nelson, William E. (2000). Marbury v. .Madison: The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review.^ There are a number of problems, however, with relying upon Madisons speech as evidence of the Framers acceptance of judicial review.
    • NHBA -Bar Journal Issue 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nhbar.org [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Where in the Constitution was judicial review before Marbury v Madison?
    • Bloodless Coup: Publius Makes a "Linguistic Case Against Scalia" 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.bloodlesscoup.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ The lesson, therefore, to be learned from all this is that if judicial review is to be preserved, it should not stray too far from its origins.
    • NHBA -Bar Journal Issue 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nhbar.org [Source type: Original source]

    University Press of Kansas. .ISBN 0700610626.   (One introduction to the case)
  • Clinton, Robert Lowry (1991).^ Robert Lowry Clintons thesis on "How the Court Became Supreme" (January) is intriguing, but most certainly wrong.
    • Marshall, Marbury, and Judicial Supremacy | First Things 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.firstthings.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ There is a school of thought, most prominently represented by Robert Lowry Clinton in his 1989 book MARBURY v.
    • NHBA -Bar Journal Issue 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nhbar.org [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Bravo to First Things for publishing Robert Lowry Clintons "How the Court Became Supreme."
    • Marshall, Marbury, and Judicial Supremacy | First Things 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.firstthings.com [Source type: Original source]

    Marbury v. .Madison and Judicial Review.^ There are a number of problems, however, with relying upon Madisons speech as evidence of the Framers acceptance of judicial review.
    • NHBA -Bar Journal Issue 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nhbar.org [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Where in the Constitution was judicial review before Marbury v Madison?
    • Bloodless Coup: Publius Makes a "Linguistic Case Against Scalia" 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.bloodlesscoup.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Madison , 1 the Supreme Court of the United States created the doctrine of "judicial review."
    • THE IRREPRESSIBLE MYTH OF MARBURY 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.freerepublic.com [Source type: Original source]

    University Press of Kansas. .ISBN 0700605177.   (Claims that it is a mistake to read the case as claiming a judicial power to tell the President or Congress what they can or cannot do under the Constitution.^ It certainly cannot in all cases; nor to the president in any case.
    • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]

    ^ The judicial power, he observed, was extended to ''all cases arising under the constitution.''
    • FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article III: Annotations pg. 13 of 25 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC caselaw.lp.findlaw.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution.
    • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
    • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]
    • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC supct.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]

    )
  • Irons, Peter (1999). .A People's History of the Supreme Court.^ Sandford, the Supreme Court ruled that slaves were property and that the Missouri Compromise, which prohibited slavery in certain parts of the United States, was unconstitutional in that it deprived people of property, their slaves.
    • SSC - TEKS and TAKS - TEKS Glossary - Grade 8 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tea.state.tx.us [Source type: Original source]

    ^ The official source for Nebraska History http://court.nol.org/judges/scjudges.htm Nebraska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Opinions of the Nebraska Supreme Court And Court of Appeals (Criminal/Juvenile Cases).
    • H-Law | Internet Links 25 September 2009 6:06 UTC www.h-net.org [Source type: FILTERED WITH BAYES]

    ^ Madison was one of the most important decisions in U.S. judicial history, because it legitimized the ability of the Supreme Court to judge the consitutionality of acts of the president or Congress.
    • A Federalist Stronghold: John Marshall's Supreme Court [ushistory.org] 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.ushistory.org [Source type: Academic]

    Penguin Books. pp. 104–107. ISBN 0140292012.
     
  • Newmyer, R. Kent (2001). .John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court.^ But in 1803 (“Marbury vs. Madison,”) the Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Marshall, affirmed its own right of “judicial [ri’vju:] review.” It means that the Supreme Court can decide whether a law is constitutional or not.

    ^ In 1832, in response to an appeal by the Cherokee, Chief Justice John Marshall of the Supreme Court declared that it was unconstitutional for the state of Georgia to remove the tribe from their land.
    • SSC - TEKS and TAKS - TEKS Glossary - Grade 8 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tea.state.tx.us [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Oregon challenged the law, and the U.S. Supreme Court decided that Congress could not control the voting age for state elections.
    • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

    Louisiana State University Press. ISBN 0807132497.
     
  • Tushnet, Mark (2008). .I dissent: Great Opposing Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases.^ The file consists of over 7,000 Supreme Court opinions dating from 1937 through 1975, from volumes 300 through 422 of U.S. Reports.
    • H-Law | Internet Links 25 September 2009 6:06 UTC www.h-net.org [Source type: FILTERED WITH BAYES]

    ^ Alaska Supreme Court Opinions .
    • H-Law | Internet Links 25 September 2009 6:06 UTC www.h-net.org [Source type: FILTERED WITH BAYES]

    ^ This suit began an eleven-year legal fight that ended in the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued a landmark decision declaring that Scott remain a slave.
    • H-Law | Internet Links 25 September 2009 6:06 UTC www.h-net.org [Source type: FILTERED WITH BAYES]

    Boston: Beacon Press. pp. 1–16. ISBN 9780807000366.
     
  • Sloan, Cliff; McKean, David (2009). .The Great Decision: Jefferson, Adams, Marshall and the Battle for the Supreme Court.^ Gives background, images of key players, and the legacy of this momentous Supreme Court decision.
    • A Federalist Stronghold: John Marshall's Supreme Court [ushistory.org] 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.ushistory.org [Source type: Academic]

    ^ This suit began an eleven-year legal fight that ended in the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued a landmark decision declaring that Scott remain a slave.
    • H-Law | Internet Links 25 September 2009 6:06 UTC www.h-net.org [Source type: FILTERED WITH BAYES]

    ^ However, if these decisions dealt with judicial review of laws at all, it was highly doubtful they approved a right of judicial review for the German Supreme Court.
    • German Law Journal - Two Hundred Years of Marbury v. Madison: The Struggle for Judicial Review of Constitutional Questions in the United States and Europe 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.germanlawjournal.com [Source type: Original source]

    .New York, NY: PublicAffairs.^ The Board of Education of New Hyde Park, New York, instructed the schools of their district to have students recite a NYS Regents-composed prayer at the beginning of each school day.
    • Supreme Court Cases (Summary) 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]
    • Supreme Court Cases (Summary) 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC law.touro.edu [Source type: Original source]

    ISBN 1586484265.
     

External links

  • Text of Marbury v. .Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) is available from:  · Enfacto · LII
  • The 200th Anniversary of Marbury v.^ Madison , 1 Cranch 137 (1803) , that '[it] is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.'
    • http://www.wjopc.com/site/constitutional/chenoweth.html 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.wjopc.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Marbury v Madison (Cite as: 5 U.S. 137 )   WILLIAM MARBURY v.
    • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Madison , 1 Cranch 137 (1803), was also a 'political' case, involving as it did claims under a judicial commission alleged to have been duly signed by the President but not delivered.
    • http://www.wjopc.com/site/constitutional/chenoweth.html 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.wjopc.com [Source type: Original source]

    .Madison
    : The Reasons We Should Still Care About the Decision, and The Lingering Questions It Left Behind
  • The Establishment of Judicial Review
  • The 200th Anniversary of Marbury v.^ There is something else about the exercise of judicial review which distinguishes it from the ordinary business of judging.
    • NHBA -Bar Journal Issue 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nhbar.org [Source type: Original source]

    ^ But in 1803 (“Marbury vs. Madison,”) the Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Marshall, affirmed its own right of “judicial [ri’vju:] review.” It means that the Supreme Court can decide whether a law is constitutional or not.

    ^ There are a number of problems, however, with relying upon Madisons speech as evidence of the Framers acceptance of judicial review.
    • NHBA -Bar Journal Issue 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nhbar.org [Source type: Original source]

    .Madison
    : The Supreme Court's First Great Case
  • Case Brief for Marbury v.^ I recently coauthored an amicus brief on behalf of myself and seven other legal scholars specializing in property and eminent domain, urging the Supreme Court to hear this case.
    • The Volokh Conspiracy - Your Money or Your Land: Didden v. Village of Port Chester - An important Post-Kelo eminent domain case: 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC volokh.com [Source type: Original source]

    ^ Accordingly, I believe he was alluding to the unpublished Supreme Court cases cited by the Court in Merrill , not to the Ten Pound Act Cases.
    • NHBA -Bar Journal Issue 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.nhbar.org [Source type: Original source]

    ^ The Supreme Court Review: Subject Index and Table of Cases .
    • The Supreme Court Review: Subject Index and Table of Cases 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.liu.edu [Source type: Academic]

    Madison at Lawnix.com

Source material

Up to date as of January 22, 2010

From Wikisource

Marbury v. Madison
Supreme Court of the United States
Syllabus
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), is a landmark case in United States law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review of Federal statutes by the United States Supreme Court under Article Three of the United States Constitution.Excerpted from Marbury v. Madison on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
.
Court Documents
Opinion of the Court
Wikipedia-logo.png
Wikipedia article
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
5 U.S. 137
Marbury v.^ Sandford, the Supreme Court ruled that slaves were property and that the Missouri Compromise, which prohibited slavery in certain parts of the United States, was unconstitutional in that it deprived people of property, their slaves.
  • SSC - TEKS and TAKS - TEKS Glossary - Grade 8 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tea.state.tx.us [Source type: Original source]

^ Therefore, when our states begin to assert their natural and sovereign right of self-defense against federal tyranny, each State will answer to their sovereign–the people–and NOT to the United States Supreme Court.
  • The Marbury v. Madison Mantra 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC ameriborn.com [Source type: Original source]
  • The Marbury v. Madison Mantra | Republic Broadcasting Network 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC republicbroadcasting.org [Source type: Original source]
  • The Marbury v. Madison Mantra | Tenth Amendment Center 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tenthamendmentcenter.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Supreme Court of the United States.
  • POLITICAL SCIENCE 313 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC campus.queens.edu [Source type: FILTERED WITH BAYES]
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

Madison
.The clerks of the Department of State of the United States may be called upon to give evidence of transactions in the Department which are not of a confidential character.^ The Secretary of State cannot be called upon as a witness to state transactions of a confidential nature which may have occurred in his Department.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison - Wikisource 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC en.wikisource.org [Source type: Original source]

^ Madison The clerks of the Department of State of the United States may be called upon to give evidence of transactions in the Department which are not of a confidential character.
  • Marbury v. Madison - MSN Encarta 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC encarta.msn.com [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison - Wikisource 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC en.wikisource.org [Source type: Original source]

^ But he may be called upon to give testimony of circumstances which were not of that character.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison - Wikisource 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC en.wikisource.org [Source type: Original source]

.The Secretary of State cannot be called upon as a witness to state transactions of a confidential nature which may have occurred in his Department.^ The Secretary of State cannot be called upon as a witness to state transactions of a confidential nature which may have occurred in his Department.
  • MARBURY V. MADISON, 5 U. S. 137 (1803) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC supreme.justia.com [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison - Wikisource 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC en.wikisource.org [Source type: Original source]

^ Madison The clerks of the Department of State of the United States may be called upon to give evidence of transactions in the Department which are not of a confidential character.
  • Marbury v. Madison - MSN Encarta 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC encarta.msn.com [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison - Wikisource 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC en.wikisource.org [Source type: Original source]

^ They proceeded to call as witnesses two State Department clerks.
  • ⌘Untitled Document¥¥ßß≤≤≤±±±∞∞∞ØØØÆÆßþý≤≤±±±∞∞∞ØØØÆÆ≠ýýýý´´´™™™©©©®®≠≠ý¨¨´´´™™™©©©®®≠≠ý¨¸´´´™™™©©©®®ß߶¶¶•••§ §§£££¢¢ß߶¶¶•••§§§£££¢¢ß߶¶¶•••§§§£££¢¢°°†††üüüûûûùùùúú°°†††üüüûûûùùùúú°°†††üüüûûûùù ùúúõõöööôôôòòòóóóññõõöööôôôòòòóóóññõõöööôôôòòòóóóññïïîîîìììííí 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.wilsoncenter.org [Source type: Original source]

.But he may be called upon to give testimony of circumstances which were not of that character.^ But he may be called upon to give testimony of circumstances which were not of that character.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]

^ Madison The clerks of the Department of State of the United States may be called upon to give evidence of transactions in the Department which are not of a confidential character.
  • Marbury v. Madison - MSN Encarta 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC encarta.msn.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Lincoln, who had been the acting secretary of state, when the circumstances stated in the affidavits occurred, was called upon to give testimony.
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]

.Clerks in the Department of State were directed to be sworn, subject to objections to questions upon confidential matters.^ Clerks in the Department of State were directed to be sworn, subject to objections to questions upon confidential matters.
  • MARBURY V. MADISON, 5 U. S. 137 (1803) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC supreme.justia.com [Source type: Original source]

^ He summoned Wagner and Brent, and when they objected to being sworn because “they were clerks in the Department of State, and not bound to disclose any facts relating to the business or transactions in the office,” Lee argued that in addition to their “confidential” duties as agents of the President, the Secretary and his deputies had duties “of a public nature” delegated to them by Congress.
  • AmericanHeritage.com / MARBURY v. MADISON The Case of the “Missing” Commissions 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.americanheritage.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Madison The clerks of the Department of State of the United States may be called upon to give evidence of transactions in the Department which are not of a confidential character.
  • Marbury v. Madison - MSN Encarta 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC encarta.msn.com [Source type: Original source]

.Some point of time must be taken when the power of the Executive over an officer, not removable at his will, must cease.^ Some point of time must be taken when the power of the executive over an officer, not removable at his will, 157 must cease.
  • madison - Google Scholar 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC scholar.google.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Some point of [**38] time must be taken when the power of the executive over an officer, not removable at his will, must cease.
  • LEXIS-NEXIS� Academic 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC plaza.ufl.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ Some point of time must be taken when the power of the Executi v e o v er an officer, not remo v able at his will, must cease.

.That point of time must be when the constitutional power of appointment has been exercised.^ That point of time must be, when the constitutional power of appointment has been exercised.
  • Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC press-pubs.uchicago.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ That point of time must be when the constitutional power of appointment has been exercised.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC supct.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • madison - Google Scholar 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC scholar.google.com [Source type: Original source]
  • LEXIS-NEXIS� Academic 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC plaza.ufl.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ While the independence of our government's branches must be protected under the doctrine of separation of powers, the Constitution does not prohibit these branches from exercising any control over one another.

.And the power has been exercised when the last act required from the person possessing the power has been performed.^ And this power has been exercised, when the last act, required from the person possessing the power, has been performed: this last act is the signature of the commission.
  • Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC press-pubs.uchicago.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ And the power has been exercised when the last act required from the person possessing the power has been performed.
  • MARBURY V. MADISON, 5 U. S. 137 (1803) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC supreme.justia.com [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]

^ And this power has been exercised when the last act required from the person possessing the power has been performed.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC supct.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]

.This last act is the signature of the commission.^ This last act is the signature of the commission.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • MARBURY V. MADISON, 5 U. S. 137 (1803) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC supreme.justia.com [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC supct.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • madison - Google Scholar 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC scholar.google.com [Source type: Original source]
  • LEXIS-NEXIS� Academic 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC plaza.ufl.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ The last act to be done by the President is the signature of the commission.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC supct.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ The last act to be done by the President, is the signature of the commission.
  • Marbury vs Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.umkc.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • LEXIS-NEXIS� Academic 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC plaza.ufl.edu [Source type: Original source]

.If the act of livery be necessary to give validity to the commission of an officer, it has been delivered when executed, and given to the Secretary of State for the purpose of being sealed, recorded, and transmitted to the party.^ By that act, it is enacted that the Secretary of State shall keep the seal of the United States, .

^ As secretary of state, Marshall signed and sealed the necessary judicial commissions, but the commissionswere not delivered by the end of 3 March.
  • Marbury v. Madison - Further Readings 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC law.jrank.org [Source type: Original source]

^ In the case of commissions, the law orders the Secretary of State to record them.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC supct.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]

.In cases of commissions to public officers, the law orders the Secretary of State to record them.^ In the case of commissions, the law orders the Secretary of State to record them.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC supct.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ In cases of commissions to public officers, the law orders the Secretary of State to record them.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]

^ In the case of commissions, the law orders the secretary of state to record them.
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC press-pubs.uchicago.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • madison - Google Scholar 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC scholar.google.com [Source type: Original source]
  • Primary Document: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC faculty.washington.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • LEXIS-NEXIS� Academic 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC plaza.ufl.edu [Source type: Original source]

.When, therefore, they are signed and sealed, the order for their being recorded is given, and, whether inserted inserted into the book or not, they are recorded.^ When, therefore, they are signed and sealed, the order for their being recorded is given; and whether inserted in the book or not, they are in law recorded.
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC press-pubs.uchicago.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • madison - Google Scholar 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC scholar.google.com [Source type: Original source]

^ When, therefore, they are signed and sealed, the order for their being recorded is given, and, whether inserted in the book or not, they are in law recorded.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]

^ When, therefore, they are signed and sealed, the order for their being recorded is given, and, whether inserted into the book or not, they are recorded.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]

.When the heads of the departments of the Government are the political or confidential officers of the Executive, merely to execute the will of the President, or rather to act in cases in which the Executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable.^ Nothing in the Constitution has given the Supreme Court a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them.
  • Marbury v. Madison and the Establishment of Judicial Review 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.ucumberlands.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ The conclusion from this reasoning is, that where the heads of departments are the political or confidential agents of the executive, merely to execute the will of the president, or rather to act in cases in which the executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable.

^ The conclusion from this reasoning is, that where the heads of departments are the political or confidential agents of the executive, merely to execute the will of the president, or rather to act in cases in which the executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear, than that their acts are only politically examinable.
  • Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC press-pubs.uchicago.edu [Source type: Original source]

.But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy.^ If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • From Marbury v. Madison - Sidebar - MSN Encarta 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC encarta.msn.com [Source type: Original source]
  • Key Excerpts from the Majority Opinion, Marbury v. Madison, Landmark Supreme Court Cases 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.landmarkcases.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison (1803) 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.duke.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison | John Marshall | 1803 | AMDOCS: Documents for the Study of American History 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.vlib.us [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison: A Progressive Critique 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC gladstone.uoregon.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.michaelariens.com [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.constitution.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.audiocasefiles.com [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison (1803) 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC usa.usembassy.de [Source type: Original source]
  • Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC press-pubs.uchicago.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • madison - Google Scholar 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC scholar.google.com [Source type: Original source]
  • Primary Document: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC faculty.washington.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison (1803)(summary opinion) 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC socsci.gulfcoast.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Classic case establishing judicial review - Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC biotech.law.lsu.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • LEXIS-NEXIS� Academic 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC plaza.ufl.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ If he has a right, and that right has been v iolated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?

^ But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy….
  • Primary Document: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC faculty.washington.edu [Source type: Original source]

The President of the United States, by signing the commission, appointed Mr. Marbury a justice of the peace for the County of Washington, in the District of Columbia, and the seal of the United States, affixed thereto by the Secretary of State, is conclusive testimony of the verity of the signature, and of the completion of the appointment; and the appointment conferred on him a legal right to the office for the space of five years. .Having this legal right to the office, he has a consequent right to the commission, a refusal to deliver which is a plain violation of that right for which the laws of the country afford him a remedy.^ If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?
  • Marbury vs Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.umkc.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • From Marbury v. Madison - Sidebar - MSN Encarta 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC encarta.msn.com [Source type: Original source]
  • Key Excerpts from the Majority Opinion, Marbury v. Madison, Landmark Supreme Court Cases 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.landmarkcases.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison (1803) 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.duke.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison | John Marshall | 1803 | AMDOCS: Documents for the Study of American History 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.vlib.us [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison: A Progressive Critique 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC gladstone.uoregon.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.michaelariens.com [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.constitution.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison (1803) 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC usa.usembassy.de [Source type: Original source]
  • Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC press-pubs.uchicago.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • madison - Google Scholar 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC scholar.google.com [Source type: Original source]
  • Primary Document: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC faculty.washington.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison (1803)(summary opinion) 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC socsci.gulfcoast.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Classic case establishing judicial review - Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC biotech.law.lsu.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • LEXIS-NEXIS� Academic 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC plaza.ufl.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ If he has a right, and that right has been v iolated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?

^ If P has a right, and that right has been violated, does the law afford him a remedy?
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.4lawschool.com [Source type: Original source]

.To render a mandamus a proper remedy, the officer to whom it is directed must be one to whom, on legal principles, such writ must be directed, and the person applying for it must be without any other specific remedy.^ Still, to render the mandamus a proper remedy, the officer to whom it is to be directed must be one to whom, on legal principles, such writ may be directed, and the person applying for it must be without any other specific and legal remedy.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC supct.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ Still, to render the mandamus a proper remedy, the officer to whom it is to be directed, must be one to whom, on legal principles, such writ may be directed; and the person applying for it must be without any other specific and legal remedy.
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.audiocasefiles.com [Source type: Original source]
  • Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC press-pubs.uchicago.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • madison - Google Scholar 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC scholar.google.com [Source type: Original source]
  • Primary Document: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC faculty.washington.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ MANDAMUS k63 250k63 To render mandamus a proper remedy, the officer to whom it is directed, must be one to whom, on legal principles, such writ may be directed, and the person applying for it must be without any other specific and legal remedy.
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]

.Where a commission to a public officer has been made out, signed, and sealed, and is withheld from the person entitled to it, an action of detinue for the commission against the Secretary of State who refuses to deliver it is not the proper remedy, as the judgment in detinue is for the thing itself, or its value.^ John Marshall, on his way out as secretary of state but on his way in as Chief Justice, signed the commissions.
  • Arkansas Bar Association | Publications 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.arkbar.org [Source type: Original source]

^ As secretary of state, Marshall signed and sealed the necessary judicial commissions, but the commissionswere not delivered by the end of 3 March.
  • Marbury v. Madison - Further Readings 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC law.jrank.org [Source type: Original source]

^ Marbury's commission was duly made out and signed, and Marshall as Secretary of State affixed the great seal of the United States to it.
  • http://robertwernick.com/articles/MARSHALL.htm 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC robertwernick.com [Source type: Original source]

.The value of a public office, not to be sold, is incapable of being ascertained.^ The value of a public office not to be sold is incapable of being ascertained.
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ The value of a public office not to be sold is incapable of being ascertained, and the applicant has a right to the office itself, or to nothing.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • From Marbury v. Madison - Sidebar - MSN Encarta 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC encarta.msn.com [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]

^ The value of a public office not to be sold is incapable of being ascertained; and the applicant has a right to the office itself, or to nothing.
  • madison - Google Scholar 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC scholar.google.com [Source type: Original source]

.It is a plain case for a mandamus, either to deliver the commission or a copy of it from the record.^ This, then, is a plain case of a mandamus, either to deliver the commission or a copy of it from the record, and it only remains to be inquired: .
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • From Marbury v. Madison - Sidebar - MSN Encarta 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC encarta.msn.com [Source type: Original source]

^ This, then, is a plain case for a mandamus either to deliver the commission, or a copy of it from the record; and it only remains to be inquired, Whether it can issue from this court.
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison (1803)(summary opinion) 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC socsci.gulfcoast.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ This, then, is a plain case of a mandamus, either to deli v er the commission or a copy of it from the record, and it only remains to be inquired: .

.To enable the Court to issue a mandamus to compel the delivery of the commission of a public office by the Secretary of State, it must be shown that it is an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or that it be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction.^ Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction .
  • Marbury v. Madison - Further Readings 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC law.jrank.org [Source type: Original source]

^ Appellate Jurisdiction ( aka: appellate courts) .
  • http://www.campbell.edu/faculty/Slattery/gov229/14.htm 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.campbell.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ As Marshall stated: To enable this court, then, to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction .
  • Marbury v. Madison - Further Readings 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC law.jrank.org [Source type: Original source]

.It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create the cause.^ "It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction, that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create that cause.
  • JIMMY AKIN.ORG: Is That It For Marbury v. Madison? 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.jimmyakin.org [Source type: Original source]

^ It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create that cause.
  • Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.constitution.org [Source type: Original source]

^ It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create the cause.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]

.The authority given to the Supreme Court by the act establishing the judicial system of the United States to issue writs of mandamus to public officers appears not to be warranted by the Constitution.^ The fundamental question was, did the Supreme Court have the jurisdiction (for example, the constitutional authority) to issue the writ of "mandamus" that Marbury sought?
  • FindLaw's Writ - Grossman: The 200th Anniversary of Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC writ.news.findlaw.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Madison the Supreme Court was asked to issue a writ of mandamus against Secretary of State James Madison .
  • Marbury V Madison: Free Encyclopedia Articles at Questia.com Online Library 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.questia.com [Source type: Academic]

^ As a result, the authority Congress gave to the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus "appears not to be warranted by the Constitution."
  • DCBA Brief, September 1997 Issue -  Chapter 13 - Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.dcba.org [Source type: Original source]

.It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.^ Marshall wrote, "It is emphatically the province and duty" of the courts "to say what the law is."
  • Why Marbury v. Madison Still Matters - Newsweek.com 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.newsweek.com [Source type: News]

^ It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department, .
  • POLITICAL SCIENCE 313 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC campus.queens.edu [Source type: FILTERED WITH BAYES]

^ ''It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
  • FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article III: Annotations pg. 13 of 25 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC caselaw.lp.findlaw.com [Source type: Original source]

.Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule.^ Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule.
  • Marbury vs Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.umkc.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Key Excerpts from the Majority Opinion, Marbury v. Madison, Landmark Supreme Court Cases 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.landmarkcases.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison Celebrates 200 Years as the Law of the Land 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.angelfire.com [Source type: Original source]
  • CQ Press : Current Events In Context : Consitution Day - "Judicial Review and Legislative Power: Marbury v. Madison" 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.cqpress.com [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison | John Marshall | 1803 | AMDOCS: Documents for the Study of American History 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.vlib.us [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.michaelariens.com [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.audiocasefiles.com [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison (1803) 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC usa.usembassy.de [Source type: Original source]
  • Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC press-pubs.uchicago.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • madison - Google Scholar 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC scholar.google.com [Source type: Original source]
  • Primary Document: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC faculty.washington.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Classic case establishing judicial review - Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC biotech.law.lsu.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • EDSITEment Lesson - Printer Friendly 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC edsitement.neh.gov [Source type: Original source]
  • WikiAnswers - What is Marbury v. Madison and why is it a landmark case in the history of the US Supreme Court 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC wiki.answers.com [Source type: Original source]
  • The Creation of the Federal Courts [ushistory.org] 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.ushistory.org [Source type: Original source]
  • LEXIS-NEXIS� Academic 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC plaza.ufl.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • Random House, Inc. Academic Resources | The Supreme Court by William H. Rehnquist 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.randomhouse.com [Source type: Original source]
  • In Marbury vs Madison Jefferson Saw the Beginning of Judicial Tyranny 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.freerepublic.com [Source type: FILTERED WITH BAYES]

^ Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expoundand interpret the rule.
  • Marbury v. Madison - Further Readings 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC law.jrank.org [Source type: Original source]

^ Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • From Marbury v. Madison - Sidebar - MSN Encarta 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC encarta.msn.com [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.constitution.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC supct.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]

.If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.^ The Court must apply the law.
  • JIMMY AKIN.ORG: Is That It For Marbury v. Madison? 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.jimmyakin.org [Source type: Original source]

^ If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operations of each.
  • CQ Press : Current Events In Context : Consitution Day - "Judicial Review and Legislative Power: Marbury v. Madison" 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.cqpress.com [Source type: Original source]
  • Legislative-Judicial Checks and Balances | Three Branches of American Government 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC aboutgovernmentstates.com [Source type: Original source]

^ How would the court decide to resolve "two laws that conflict?"

.If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.^ If then, the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
  • Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1: Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC press-pubs.uchicago.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

^ If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must go v ern the case to which they both apply.

.At the December Term, 1801, William Marbury, Dennis Ramsay, Robert Townsend Hooe, and William Harper, by their counsel, [p138] severally moved the court for a rule to James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States, to show cause why a mandamus should not issue commanding him to cause to be delivered to them respectively their several commissions as justices of the peace in the District of Columbia.^ William Marbury never did get his commission as a justice of the peace for the District of Columbia.
  • Random House, Inc. Academic Resources | The Supreme Court by William H. Rehnquist 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.randomhouse.com [Source type: Original source]

^ At the last term, on the affidavits then read and filed with the clerk, a rule was granted in this case requiring the Secretary of State to show cause why a mandamus [p154] should not issue directing him to deliver to William Marbury his commission as a justice of the peace for the county of Washington, in the District of Columbia.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.law.cornell.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ How can it even be possible that this is a Supreme Court issue in the United States?
  • The Volokh Conspiracy - Your Money or Your Land: Didden v. Village of Port Chester - An important Post-Kelo eminent domain case: 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC volokh.com [Source type: Original source]

This motion was supported by affidavits of the following facts: that notice of this motion had been given to Mr. Madison; that Mr. Adams, the late President of the United States, nominated the applicants to the Senate for their advice and consent to be appointed justices of the peace of the District of Columbia; that the Senate advised and consented to the appointments; that commissions in due form were signed by the said President appointing them justices, &c., and that the seal of the United States was in due form affixed to the said commissions by the Secretary of State; that the applicants have requested Mr. Madison to deliver them their said commissions, who has not complied with that request; and that their said commissions are withheld from them; that the applicants have made application to Mr. Madison as Secretary of State of the United States at his office, for information whether the commissions were signed and sealed as aforesaid; that explicit and satisfactory information has not been given in answer to that inquiry, either by the Secretary of State or any officer in the Department of State; that application has been made to the secretary of the Senate for a certificate of the nomination of the applicants, and of the advice and consent of the Senate, who has declined giving such a certificate; whereupon a rule was made to show cause on the fourth day of this term. This rule having been duly served, [p139]
Mr. Jacob Wagner and Mr. Daniel Brent, who had been summoned to attend the court, and were required to give evidence, objected to be sworn, alleging that they were clerks in the Department of State, and not bound to disclose any facts relating to the business or transactions of the office.
.The court ordered the witnesses to be sworn, and their answers taken in writing, but informed them that, when the questions were asked, they might state their objections to answering each particular question, if they had any.^ The court ordered the witnesses to be sworn, and their answers taken in writing, but informed them that, when the questions were asked, they might state their objections to answering each particular question, if they had any.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]

^ Everyone in the Court knew the answer to that question.
  • The Claremont Institute - The True Story of Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.claremont.org [Source type: Original source]
  • The Claremont Institute - The True Story of Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.claremont.org [Source type: Original source]

^ Ask a question or post an answer.
  • SparkNotes: The Constitution (1781–1815): Jefferson’s Agrarian Republic: 1800–1808 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.sparknotes.com [Source type: Original source]

Mr. Lincoln, who had been the acting Secretary of State, when the circumstances stated in the affidavits occurred, was called upon to give testimony. He objected to answering. .The questions were put in writing.^ The questions were put in writing.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ In requiring that Lee put his questions in writing, the Court had preempted the possibility of a dramatic interrogation of Lincoln that would undoubtedly have fanned the flames of partisanship.
  • DCBA Brief, September 1997 Issue -  Chapter 13 - Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.dcba.org [Source type: Original source]

^ He requested that the questions might be put in writing, and that he might afterwards have time to determine whether he would answer.
  • The Claremont Institute - The True Story of Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.claremont.org [Source type: Original source]
  • The Claremont Institute - The True Story of Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.claremont.org [Source type: Original source]

.The court said there was nothing confidential required to be disclosed.^ The court said there was nothing confidential required to be disclosed.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ There was nothing confidential required to be disclosed.
  • The Claremont Institute - The True Story of Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.claremont.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • The Claremont Institute - The True Story of Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.claremont.org [Source type: Original source]

^ If there had been, he was not obliged to answer it, and if he thought anything was communicated to him confidentially, he was not bound to disclose, nor was he obliged to state anything which would criminate himself.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]

.If there had been, he was not obliged to answer it, and if he thought anything was communicated to him confidentially, he was not bound to disclose, nor was he obliged to state anything which would criminate himself.^ He ought not to be compelled to answer anything which might tend to criminate himself.
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ If there had been, he was not obliged to answer it, and if he thought anything was communicated to him confidentially, he was not bound to disclose, nor was he obliged to state anything which would criminate himself.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]

^ There was nothing confidential required to be disclosed.
  • The Claremont Institute - The True Story of Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.claremont.org [Source type: Original source]
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]
  • The Claremont Institute - The True Story of Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.claremont.org [Source type: Original source]

.The questions argued by the counsel for the relators were, 1. Whether the Supreme Court can award the writ of mandamus in any case.^ He asked the Supreme Court to decide his case.
  • American History Series: Jefferson Gets Louisiana Territory From France 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.voanews.com [Source type: Original source]

^ Whether the Supreme Court can award the writ of mandamus in any case?
  • Marbury v. Madison 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.tourolaw.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ Whether the Supreme Court can award the writ of mandamus in any case.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]

.2. Whether it will lie to a Secretary of State, in any case whatever.^ Whether it will lie to a secretary of state, in any case whatever.
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ Whether it will lie to a Secretary of State, in any case whatever.
  • Marbury v. Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.ashbrook.org [Source type: Original source]

^ Whether it will lie to a Secretary of State in any case whatever?
  • Marbury v. Madison | John Marshall | 1803 | AMDOCS: Documents for the Study of American History 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC www.vlib.us [Source type: Original source]

.3. Whether, in the present case, the Court may award a mandamus to James Madison, Secretary of State.^ Madison the Supreme Court was asked to issue a writ of mandamus against Secretary of State James Madison .
  • Marbury V Madison: Free Encyclopedia Articles at Questia.com Online Library 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.questia.com [Source type: Academic]

^ Whether it will lie to a secretary of state, in any case whatever.
  • Marbury v Madison 25 September 2009 2:31 UTC carver.law.cuny.edu [Source type: Original source]

^ James Madison, the new Secretary of State, was not yet in Washington.
  • AmericanHeritage.com / MARBURY v. MADISON The Case of the “Missing” Commissions 17 January 2010 6:13 UTC www.americanheritage.com [Source type: Original source]


Simple English

Marbury v. Madison is a famous Supreme Court case that first established judicial review in the United States.

Following the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, was elected President of the United States. During his time as a lame duck (after losing the re-election but before leaving office), outgoing President John Adams, a member of the Federalist Party, started making other Federalists judges. His party was losing power, but by making Federalists judges that would serve for life, Adams was trying to keep Jefferson and his party from changing things too much.

All the new judges were approved by the Senate. Secretary of State John Marshall now had to deliver the judges the document (called a commission) that made them judges. Marshall delivered most of them, but not all as time ran out. He thought the new Secretary of State would deliver them, because even though the new office holders did not want the new judges, the judges were legally made. However, President Jefferson made sure the commissions were not delivered. He thought that they would become void if they were not delivered in time.

One of the judges who did not get his commission was William Marbury. He sued the new Secretary of State James Madison, wanting his commission. Marbury asked the Supreme Court to order Madison to deliver the commission.

The Supreme Court made a 4-0 decision. Chief Justice John Marshall, the former Secretary of State, made a ruling that said that Marbury was entitled to his commission. However, Marshall said that a law that gave the Supreme Court the power to rule on the case was against the United States Constitution. Thus, the Supreme Court did not have the power to make Madison give Marbury his commission/administration.


Citable sentences

Up to date as of December 25, 2010

Here are sentences from other pages on Marbury v. Madison, which are similar to those in the above article.








Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address
Message