Synopsis"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). The landmark decision helped define the "checks and balances" of the American form of government."
Background
"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. 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 part of the statute upon which he based his claim, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional."
Consequences or Legacy
"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."
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]
Discussion
I copy and pasted most of this from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
Judicial Review apparently was not in the constitution. The last sentence in the criticisms section reads, "Despite such criticisms of Marbury v. Madison, judicial review has been accepted in the American legal community."
Was judicial review inevitable? Do humans always break down into hiearchal structuring (think alpha male or pack leader with levels of subleadership and then all the way down to the workers)?
Aside
Also, do we have a day of the week for "Supreme Court Case of the Week"? And do we have a format for these? Just use Steve's?
Posts
As for format, I would suggest the following:
ReplyDeleteCase (with year)
Chief Justice (just to familiarize ourselves a bit with the historical figures on the court)
Background
Synopsis
Consequences/Legacy
Dissenting Opinions (what the argument against the majority opinion was)
Further Discussion
I think the dissenting opinion should be an important aspect, because many cases will end up 5-4, so we should definitely understand the opposing arguments because it easily could have ended up in that position.
As for scheduling, it doesn't really matter to me. I did it on the weekend partially because that was when I had the most time to actually sit and go through the case to fully understand it.
So if you guys want to pick a day, anything works for me.
ReplyDeleteAlso Jarrod, Brent probably mentioned it, but he suggested we start at the beginning, and go chronologically. I think that's a good idea. I was actually planning to do this same case next since it's essentially the birth of the Supreme Court as we now know it. How should we decide the cases? I know there are some lists of the most influential cases, but at 1 a week, they'd only take us like 6 months to get through, and we'd still only get a cursory knowledge of these cases. I think if we go from the time of the previous post, and try to find the most noteworthy case of the next few years. Since this one is 1803, I'd say the next case should be no later than 1808, unless there was absolutely nothing in those five years that was of any later consequence.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJudicial review was inevitable. The Judicial branch of government would almost be powerless without it. Let’s consider some countries that have separation of powers, but limited or no judicial review:
ReplyDeleteIndonesia – Limited judicial review, a recent report from Human Rights Watch “Continuing areas of concern in Indonesia include impunity for past human rights violations, the slow pace of military reform, conditions in Papua, imposition of the death penalty, and infringements on freedom of expression and religious freedom.”
Malaysia – No judicial review, a recent Human Rights Watch “Violations to Malaysian citizens include right to vote freely, freedom of religion, independence of the legal system, freedom of speech, and homosexual rights.”
Soviet Russia – Stalin introduced a new constitution in 1936 repealing restrictions on voting and adding universal direct suffrage and the constitution recognized social and economic rights including: rest, leisure, health protection, housing, education, cultural benefits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_Soviet_Constitution). This is almost laughable if it weren’t true. Notice how they were “guaranteed” more rights than Americans…needless to say, no judicial review.
Jefferson may have been concerned with an “oligarchy” but in my mind Justices are freer to interpret the constitution because they are not up for re-election. Also, I could build a strong argument that without judicial review we may not have the personal freedoms we have today (“we” encompassing African Americans, women, religious groups, etc.) and at least I can say unequivocally that such human rights' accomplishments listed formally would not have happened as soon.