Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

Marbury v Madison

History What the Case Looked At Ruling Why was it Important? What it Means Today Conclusion

History

42 justices of the peace

16 circuit court justices

What the case looked at

Does Marbury have a right

to the commission?

Does the

law grant Marbury a remedy?

Does the Supreme Court

have the authority

to review

acts of Congress

and determine

whether they are unconstitutional

and therefore void?

Can Congress expand the scope of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what is specified in Article III of the Constitution?

Does the

Supreme Court

have

original jurisdiction

to issue

writs of mandamus?

Ruling

The decision was ultimately that Marbury’s application for a writ of mandamus was denied. Marbury did not get the commission.

Why was it important?

This case was highly important and historical because it was the first case to apply the principle of Judicial Review--The power of the Supreme Court to judge whether an official act or a piece of legislation violates the Constitution or other basic principles of justice.

What does it mean today?

Marbury v Madison was the first case to cite judicial review in its ruling. It was heavily critcized because it was thought to establish an oligarchy having control of the country (as said by President Thomas Jefferson). Nevertheless, the concept was accepted into American law.

Other cases that the Marshall Court held include:

Martin v Hunter's Lessee- Article III gives the Supreme Court power to trump state courts on matters of federal law.

McCulloch v Maryland- expanded upon Congress' implied power.

Cohens v Virgina- the Court said it had original and apellate jurispudence over state courts

Little v Barreme- the president can't do anything against Congress.

Conclusion

“The Chief Justice ruled that the Court could not grant the writ because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted it the right to do so, was unconstitutional insofar as it extended to cases of original jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction -- the power to bring cases directly to the Supreme Court -- was the only jurisdictional matter dealt with by the Constitution itself. According to Article III, it applied only to cases "affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls" and to cases "in which the state shall be party." By extending the Court's original jurisdiction to include cases like Marbury's, Congress had exceeded it authority. And when an act of Congress is in conflict with the Constitution, it is, Marshall said, the obligation of the Court to uphold the Constitution because, by Article VI, it is the "supreme law of the land.” As a result of Marshall's decision Marbury was denied his commission.”

Questions?

1

Supreme Court

2

William Marbury

Thomas Jefferson

3

Term ends

4

John Marshall

5

John Adams

Rotate axis and drag frames

to change balance

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi