Marbury v. Madison

[Reason]

Time to brush up on this landmark case in United States law.

It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

YouTube - The Supreme Court - Marbury v. Madison (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV2jpZWg1tY)

[Galileo Galilei]

Time to brush up on this landmark case in United States law.

It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

YouTube - The Supreme Court - Marbury v. Madison (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV2jpZWg1tY)

good post.

Not only is James Madison the Father of the Constition, he also won the biggest case in history.

My favorite quote from the case:

"All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

John Marshall

[Matt Collins]

Kevin Gutzman has a good opinion and explanation about this case in his book "Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution".

[Galileo Galilei]

Kevin Gutzman has a good opinion and explanation about this case in his book "Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution".

What is it, in a nutshell?

[Njon]

Check out this article by Dr. Edwin Vieira on 'judicial supremacy.'

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/794

You can Digg it at http://digg.com/political_opinion/Dr_Edwin_Vieira_Dangers_of_Judicial_Supremacy

[Matt Collins]

What is it, in a nutshell?Basically due to some politics the Supreme Court decided on a case it shouldn't have. During the course of that it decided that it was the Supreme Court's power to be able to interpret the Constitution and then lecture the other branches of government about it's decision.

[Galileo Galilei]

Check out this article by Dr. Edwin Vieira on 'judicial supremacy.'

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/794

You can Digg it at http://digg.com/political_opinion/Dr_Edwin_Vieira_Dangers_of_Judicial_Supremacy

Judicial supremacy is not the same thing as judicial review.

Marbury vs Madison established judicial review. It most certainly did not establish judicial supremacy. It was clear at the time that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would not be ordered to deliver Marbury's commission, regardless of what John Marshall said.

Judicial Review = good

Judicial Supremacy = bad

It should also be stated that judicial supremacy does not exist in reality, only in the mass media.

Ron Paul votes against many bills because they are unconstitutional, regardless of what the Supreme Court says.

[Galileo Galilei]

Basically due to some politics the Supreme Court decided on a case it shouldn't have. During the course of that it decided that it was the Supreme Court's power to be able to interpret the Constitution and then lecture the other branches of government about it's decision.

* The Supreme Court had jurisdiction, because Marbury filed his suit with them. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction for cases arising out of the Constitution.

So the Court should have heard the case.

* Every branch of government is supposed to interpret the Constitution, including the Supreme Court, the president, the Congress and the state governments.

This was already true before the Marbury case even started.

* Every branch of governent can lecture any other branch. Ron Paul lectures pretty much the entire federal government almost every time he gives a floor speech.

I hope there is more to the book than this, because what you've presented so far makes no sense.

[Galileo Galilei]

PS

For those anti-Marbury vs. Madison fanatics, it's important to remember that Marbury vs Madison actually reduced the power of the Supreme Court.

The Court decided that it's jurisdiction was defined by the Constitution, and could not be increased by congress.

[Matt Collins]

According to Gutzman:

"Justice Marshall should've recused himself because the case was centered around his incompetence. Marshall also didn't even inquire as to whether or not the Court had jurisdiction over this particular case. The precedent of this case was for the Court to lecture elected officials even when the Court had no jurisdiction over the question at hand."

[Galileo Galilei]

According to Gutzman:

"Justice Marshall should've recused himself because the case was centered around his incompetence. Marshall also didn't even inquire as to whether or not the Court had jurisdiction over this particular case. The precedent of this case was for the Court to lecture elected officials even when the Court had no jurisdiction over the question at hand."

err, the case was filed by Marbury to the Supreme Court. Marbury has the right to file a lawsuit, regardless of whether some idiot 200 years later says Marshall was incompetent. Guzman is saying that if he thinks one judge on a court is incompetent, then you can't file? Really?

The Supreme Cour clearly had jurisdiction, because the case arose out of Constitution and was a Constitutional issue.

Also, although I do not agree with Marshall on many matters, as he allowed the principle of delegated powers to erode through much of his career, he was not incompetent. He had many bad decisions later on, but also some good ones. For example, in 1932 he tried to protect the treaty rights of the Cherokee Indians, before they were sent off on a forced death march by Andrew Jackson.

Before Marshall vs. Madison, all people in the federal government, and all free people in he United States had the right to lecture people, that is called the first amendment. And judges since time immemorial have been known to give lectures. So Guzman is dead wrong.

Guzman shares a doctrine with FDR, the doctrine of presumed Constitutionality. That doctrine states that if the congress passes it and the president signs it, then the law is presumed Constitutional. In other words, Guzman is a big government socialist and an enemy of the U.S. Constitution.