free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

gaubin · Joined: 15 Nov 2010 Posts: 29

7. The Supreme Court
Who are the Justices?
What are the politics involved?
Read - Marbury v. Madison (pp.86-89)

Please post questions and thoughts about the case... What is JUDICIAL REVIEW? How does it work? Is it right?

I thought this court case was very interesting but I also sometimes had a hard time understanding it. I think I had a hard time understanding it sometimes because it was written in 1803 and some of the legal terms were a little confusing. I was able to clarify most of the terms by looking them up. From what I understand judicial review is when the Supreme Court examines the actions of the governmental branches to make sure that the actions of the branches of the government are constitutional. Actions that are not constitutional are therefore considered void. (not legally binding) I think if a person loses a court case or they believe that something has been done to them that is unconstitutional than they can appeal to the Supreme Court. Then the Supreme Court will ascertain if the Constitution has been followed correctly or violated. "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." (8 Cool

I interpreted this quote to be that Marshall thinks that the Constitution in this case and others should overrule state and federal laws. What does everyone else think about this quote? "In some cases, then, the constitution must be looked into by the judges." (8 Cool

One of the biggest points that is brought up in this court case is the ability for judges to look into the Constitution. The final ruling of Marbury v. Madison was that although Marshall believed that Marbury should be given his commission as justice of peace he could not be forced to because the section 13 of the judiciary act was not constitutional so a ruling could not be made. Is that what people thought happened?

gaubin · Joined: 15 Nov 2010 Posts: 29

Sorry I don't know why the 88 turned into smiley faces with sunglasses.

NatalieJohnson · Joined: 15 Nov 2010 Posts: 4

I totally missed that you had already started a thread.

Anyways...
So I read this twice.

The first time I read this I had a hard time understanding how the first part of the reading connected to the second part. But after reading it a second time I see the connection. The bigger concept I got out of the article was the power struggle that the constitution presents when putting it into practice in the court room. If an unconstitutional law is passed, what do you follow? The law? Or the Constitution?

So I guess the major thing I struggled with/totally missed was what the conclusion was to this issue.

Can anyone help me out with that?

CNassar · Joined: 15 Nov 2010 Posts: 12

So, some larger concepts I got from the reading were:

-the purpose which the constitution serves
-the limits and separation of power(s)
-the integrity of the constitution
-how the constitution stacks up in regards of the law

Some open ended questions I had were:

How does one challenge the fundamentals of a government or country? Can one even challenge the building blocks of a government or country?

I thought of this question after reading page 3 of the reading (it's in between pages 87 and 88, but has no page number...). The quote that got me thinking about this question was as follows: "The principles therefore so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent" (the constitution, 8 Cool

.

The second question I thought of, was as follows: is there some twisted incentive given to break/violate the law/constitution? I started thinking about this after reading the passage which said "The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation." (Again, located on that weird limbo of 87 and 8 Cool

. I couldn't help but wonder if it was saying that there is a need for temptation to break rules.

Sorry Natalie and Gigi. I couldn't think of good answers to either of your questions. I'll think on it though

kandice simmons · Joined: 15 Nov 2010 Posts: 21

I had a tough time reading this court case and getting through the wording of these documents. However this court case raised the following questions: What rights were violated and or unconstitutional in this case? and Why was section 13 of the Judiciary Act considered to be unconstitutional? How do you separate what's morally fair between what the law actually states? What effect did this court case have on our judicial system?

aegilman2011 · Joined: 16 Nov 2010 Posts: 4

I’ll attempt to answer Rachel’s questions while going on various tangents in the process

Who are the justices?

In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court justices of 1803 were the justices. Chief Justice John Marshall delivers the opinion that we read and the beliefs and views expressed within the opinion piece represent those of the majority of the Supreme Court justices.

What are the politics involved?

This case is very very very important. It established that the courts had the power to determine whether a law is constitutional or not – the power of judicial review. And if not, the proposed law is void. Because “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.” Effectively the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and “a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law.” This has huge political implications. The Supreme Court decision gives courts the powers of judicial review, which creates a (I think a very necessary) check on the legislative branch. Imagine a federal government without judicial review…Congress could pass whatever law it likes even one contradictory to the Constitution. It not only would make the Constitution trivial but it would be a major threat to the balance of power in the government. Who is to ensure that the Congress doesn’t make me the supreme ruler of the country or something even worse? But judicial review ensures that the legislative branch is accountable to the Constitution. So no worries guys.

Does anyone have any qualms that this decision by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison gave the Supreme Court enormous power? Ironically, the Supreme Court granted themselves power which was exactly what they were trying to prevent the legislative branch from doing by giving themselves the power of judicial review. Does the Constitution really grant the powers of judicial review to the judicial branch? And if so, why isn’t it more clear?

To Gigi - Yes that is what happened: the Constitution does not include the issue of writs to executive officers. Yet Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 did give the Supreme Court the power to issue such writs. But Section 13 was unconstitutional so void/the courts really didn’t have that power.

To Natalie – If an unconstitutional law is passed by Congress than it is not followed. Question to Rachel: Is it the unconstitutional law followed until a case concerning that law gets to the Supreme Court so they can rule it unconstitutional?

athornton · Joined: 15 Nov 2010 Posts: 2

THANK YOU ALEX. Like Candice I had trouble reading through this document because of the wording. I came out of it with a ton of questions but Alex E cleared things up a lot for me.

Yujia · Joined: 15 Nov 2010 Posts: 3

I was wondering if it was legal of Marbury to ask the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus and whether the law has a remedy for Marbury… And also I had the same question as Natalie did, what was the outcome for this case? So I looked up online for the brief introduction of the case and found this website that might be of help http://www.lawnix.com/cases/marbury-madison.html

Aundré Bumgardner · Joined: 16 Nov 2010 Posts: 25

After much attempt to login, and quite frankly a difficult night here are my questions...

Weren't the acts of Marshall not only unconstitutional but illegal?

If this were to happen in today's world, would both the president and in this case, the secretary of state be prosecuted?

Free Forum