Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Transcript of Marbury v. Madison (1803)
The Court Case
Marshall's Three Questions & Answers
1. Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?
2. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, does the law have a remedy for him?
3. If there is a remedy, is issuing a writ of mandamus the correct remedy?
The Official Results
John Adams' Lame Duck Period
Is it unconstitutional?
Affordable Healthcare Act
State regulation of immigration
Limiting free-speech laws
Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?
Yes, he has a right to the commission he demands.
James Madison, the new Secretary of State under Jefferson, refused to process the appointed positions because Jefferson told him not to.
D.C. Justice of the Peace William Marbury, not so happy with the Federalist, argued that the Supreme Court, under the Judiciary Law of 1789, could grant a writ of mandamus(legal order) which would obligate Madison to make his appointment official.
Based on Jim Harvey's speech structures
Lame Duck- an elected official or group continuing to hold political office during the period between the election and the inauguration of a successor
After losing the election of 1800, John Adams made last minute changes to favor the Federalist Party.
The Judiciary Act of 1801 passed by congress allowed Adams to:
Appoint 16 Judges(aka Midnight Judges) to Circuit Courts
42 Justices of the Peace including William Marbury
Appoint John Marshall as Chief Justice of the S.C.
2 Justices did not participate because of illness
If he has a right, and that right has been violated, does the law have a "remedy" for him?
Since he has a right to his commission, there must be a remedy.
If there is a remedy, is issuing a writ of mandamus the correct remedy?
According to Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2, President Adams had the right to appoint Marbury to his position which was already approved by the Senate.
"The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right." -John Marshall
The court ruled that the Court could not grant the writ because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789(Congress exceeded its power) was unconstitutional because as it extended to cases of original jurisdiction(the power to bring cases directly to the Supreme Court) which were supposed to be dealt in lower courts.
The dissenting opinion was written by Chief Justice John Marshall and it stated that "the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States to issue writs of mandamus to public officers" is unconstitutional. The case established judicial review.
Unconstitutionality can be determined by judicial review.
MARBURY v. MADISON. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 23 November 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1803/1803_0/>.
"Oyez, Oyez, Oh Yay!: Civics Resources for Texas Students & Teachers." Marbury v. Madison. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2013. <http://www.texasbar.com/civics/cases/marbury-v-madison.html>.
McBride, Alex. PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2013. <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_marbury.html>.
"Marbury v. Madison: Document J, Unanimous Majority Opinion, Marbury v. Madison, 1803." Bill of Rights Institute. Web. 23 Nov. 2013. <http://billofrightsinstitute.org/blog/2012/10/15/marbury-v-madison-document-j-unanimous-majority-opinion-marbury-v-madison-1803/>.
Holland, Joshua. "6 Crazy, Unconstitutional Laws Right-Wingers Are Blowing Your Money On." Alternet. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2013. <http://www.alternet.org/story/151033/6_crazy,_unconstitutional_laws_right-wingers_are_blowing_your_money_on?page=0,2>.