Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • Marbury

    Загружено:

    api-284579045
    629 просмотров1 страница
    Marbury v. Madison was the first case to apply the principle of "judicial review" the power of federal courts to void acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution. Chief justice Marshall's decision played a key role in making The Supreme Court a separate branch of government.

    Исходное описание:

    Оригинальное название

    marbury

    Авторское право

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Доступные форматы

    PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    Marbury v. Madison was the first case to apply the principle of "judicial review" the power of federal courts to void acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution. Chief justice Marshall's decision played a key role in making The Supreme Court a separate branch of government.

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    629 просмотров1 страница

    Marbury

    Загружено:

    api-284579045
    Marbury v. Madison was the first case to apply the principle of "judicial review" the power of federal courts to void acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution. Chief justice Marshall's decision played a key role in making The Supreme Court a separate branch of government.

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 1

    1/4/2016

    TheSupremeCourt.PrintablePage|PBS

    Marburyv.Madison(1803)
    Marburyv.Madison,arguablythemostimportantcaseinSupremeCourthistory,wasthefirstU.S.SupremeCourt
    casetoapplytheprincipleof"judicialreview"thepoweroffederalcourtstovoidactsofCongressinconflictwith
    theConstitution.Writtenin1803byChiefJusticeJohnMarshall,thedecisionplayedakeyroleinmakingthe
    SupremeCourtaseparatebranchofgovernmentonparwithCongressandtheexecutive.
    ThefactssurroundingMarburywerecomplicated.Intheelectionof1800,thenewlyorganizedDemocratic
    RepublicanpartyofThomasJeffersondefeatedtheFederalistpartyofJohnAdams,creatinganatmosphereof
    politicalpanicforthelameduckFederalists.Inthefinaldaysofhispresidency,Adamsappointedalargenumberof
    justicesofpeacefortheDistrictofColumbiawhosecommissionswereapprovedbytheSenate,signedbythe
    president,andaffixedwiththeofficialsealofthegovernment.Thecommissionswerenotdelivered,however,and
    whenPresidentJeffersonassumedofficeMarch5,1801,heorderedJamesMadison,hisSecretaryofState,notto
    deliverthem.WilliamMarbury,oneoftheappointees,thenpetitionedtheSupremeCourtforawritofmandamus,or
    legalorder,compellingMadisontoshowcausewhyheshouldnotreceivehiscommission.
    Inresolvingthecase,ChiefJusticeMarshallansweredthreequestions.First,didMarburyhavearighttothewritfor
    whichhepetitioned?Second,didthelawsoftheUnitedStatesallowthecourtstograntMarburysuchawrit?Third,if
    theydid,couldtheSupremeCourtissuesuchawrit?Withregardtothefirstquestion,MarshallruledthatMarbury
    hadbeenproperlyappointedinaccordancewithproceduresestablishedbylaw,andthathethereforehadarightto
    thewrit.Secondly,becauseMarburyhadalegalrighttohiscommission,thelawmustaffordhimaremedy.The
    ChiefJusticewentontosaythatitwastheparticularresponsibilityofthecourtstoprotecttherightsofindividuals
    evenagainstthepresidentoftheUnitedStates.Atthetime,Marshall'sthinlydisguisedlecturetoPresidentJefferson
    abouttheruleoflawwasmuchmorecontroversialthanhisstatementaboutjudicialreview(whichdoctrinewas
    widelyaccepted).
    ItwasinansweringthethirdquestionwhetherawritofmandamusissuingfromtheSupremeCourtwasthe
    properremedythatMarshalladdressedthequestionofjudicialreview.TheChiefJusticeruledthattheCourtcould
    notgrantthewritbecauseSection13oftheJudiciaryActof1789,whichgrantedittherighttodoso,was
    unconstitutionalinsofarasitextendedtocasesoforiginaljurisdiction.Originaljurisdictionthepowertobringcases
    directlytotheSupremeCourtwastheonlyjurisdictionalmatterdealtwithbytheConstitutionitself.Accordingto
    ArticleIII,itappliedonlytocases"affectingambassadors,otherpublicministersandconsuls"andtocases"inwhich
    thestateshallbeparty."ByextendingtheCourt'soriginaljurisdictiontoincludecaseslikeMarbury's,Congresshad
    exceededitauthority.AndwhenanactofCongressisinconflictwiththeConstitution,itis,Marshallsaid,the
    obligationoftheCourttoupholdtheConstitutionbecause,byArticleVI,itisthe"supremelawoftheland."
    AsaresultofMarshall'sdecisionMarburywasdeniedhiscommissionwhichpresumablypleasedPresident
    Jefferson.JeffersonwasnotpleasedwiththelecturegivenhimbytheChiefJustice,however,norwithMarshall's
    affirmationoftheCourt'spowertoreviewactsofCongress.Forpracticalstrategicreasons,Marshalldidnotsaythat
    theCourtwastheonlyinterpreteroftheConstitution(thoughhehopeditwouldbe)andhedidnotsayhowtheCourt
    wouldenforceitsdecisionsifCongressortheExecutiveopposedthem.But,byhistimelyassertionofjudicialreview,
    theCourtbeganitsascentasanequalbranchofgovernmentanequalinpowertotheCongressandthepresident.
    Throughoutitslonghistory,whentheCourtneededtoaffirmitslegitimacy,ithascitedMarshall'sopinioninMarbury
    v.Madison.

    THESUPREMECOURTisaproductionofThirteen/WNETNewYork.
    2007EducationalBroadcastingCorporation.Allrightsreserved.
    TermsofUse|PBSPrivacyPolicy

    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/print/landmark_marbury.html

    1/1

    Вам также может понравиться