Talk:Marbury v. Madison/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Marbury v. Madison. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Table

I don't like this table at all. There are far too many cases to list every single one, and selection of which cases to choose is too POV to say "preceded by" and "followed by". anthony 22:03, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Background

The first paragraph says that Jefferson was inaugurated on March 4, which is correct. Then, a few paragraphs later, the article indicates that Adams signed the commisions on March 3, the same day Jefferson took office. My understanding of the history is that all of the "Midnight Justices" were confirmed by the Senate on March 3, that Adams signed and Marshall sealed them on March 3, but that they weren't all delivered before March 4, when Jefferson took office. I don't think any of them were signed or sealed on Inauguration Day, but I might be wrong about that.

Also, my Constitutional Law professor (Laurence Tribe for those in the know) indicated an interesting bit of background that I'd never heard before. According to him, John Marshall gave some of the commissions to his brother, Jim, to deliver on March 3 (including Marbury's), but Jim didn't deliver them. If some enterprising researcher want's to fact check this and include it in the background, have at it. --Kronius 20:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's more to it than that, Kronius - Marshall misquotes the constitution in the opinion (he did this in McCulloch v. Maryland too), and was responsible for delivering the commissions in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.81.17 (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Judicial review

I deleted the following from the end of the article:

"The case is widely cited to support the court's first use of the tool of Judicial review in finding that a statute or action taken by the government is unconstitutional. However, the case only applied to the Supreme Court itself, as the court was only refusing to exercise a power that it thought to be unconstitutional. The first major case in which an unconstitutionality ruling was applied to the other branches of government was Dred Scott v. Sandford."

I have no idea where the person who put this article together got this, but it's simply incorrect. The Marbury Court invalidated a portion of Section 13 the Judiciary Act of 1789 on the grounds that it exceeded the original jurisdiction granted to the Court by Section 2, Article III of the Constitution. (The merits of the view that Section 2 was intended to set a ceiling on original jurisdiction as opposed to a floor are somewhat doubtful, but Marshall apparently decided to go with this bizarre interpretation in order to stage a conflict between a statute and a provision of the Constitution.) The fact that this incidentally deprived the Court of a power that it might otherwise have exercised does not in any way alter the import of the action it took. SS451 22:03, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

The article's assertion that Marbury represented the first time judicial review was used in the US is not correct. It was the first time judicial review was used by the US Supreme Court to invalidate an act of congress. It was not the first time the US Supreme Court was presented with a question concerning the constitutionality of congression action; that occurred in Hylton v. U.S., a constitutional challenge to a congressionally created carriage tax. However, judicial review was generally accepted in state courts as early as the 1780's in such cases as Commonwealth v. Caton, 8 Va. (4 Call.) 5, 17–18 (1782), Symsbury Case, 1 Kirby 444, 447 (Conn. 1785); Anonymous, 2 N.C. 28, 29, 39-40 (1794); Respublica v. Duquet, 2 Yeates 493, 501 (Pa. 1799); Ham v. M’Claws, 1 S.C.L. (1 Bay) 93, 98 (1789). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbuenger (talk • contribs) 12:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Another Question-Please answer!

Did the Supreme Court declare the entire Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional as this article says? Or just a clause within the act, as it seems to say on the Judiciary Act (United States) article? It should be clarified. -R. fiend 22:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

********

I believe they found only Section 13 to be unconstitutional (the section that gave the court the power to issue mandamus), not the entire act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.76.86.195 (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2005 (UTC)

*******************************************

The Supreme Court didn't didn't declare any of the Judiciary Act unconstitutional. What Marshall said was that if the Judiciary Act meant what Marbury claimed it meant, it would be unconstitutional, therefore Marbury loses. Kronius 18:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

wait a minute...I thought that this case gave the Supreme Court more power, not that it took away from it...clarification?69.114.144.104 01:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

to clarify, the precedential value of this case is to bestow the S.Ct. with an ability of "judicial review" over acts of congress. This is a huge enlargement of power, implied in the constitution, but not formerly appreciated. Interestingly, it manifested the very power it was creating in the process of creating it. The only "power" that it denied itself was that of "original jurisdiction" over a particular kind of controversy (this is an issue of "subject matter jurisdiction" and refers to if/when this particular court may hear a case). Congress, a legislature of limited/enumerated powers, may not enact laws that disagree with the constitution (here, Art. III, §2), other than via amendment. 76.91.157.41 (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

- By an AP History Student -> I believed that the supreme court did not call the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional but the Judiciary Act of 1801 unconstitutional. The act of 1789 essentially created the courts system/judiciary branch. That includes the Supreme Count and Attorney General. The Act of 1801 was made by John Adams to appoint "16 Midnight Judges" to "screw over Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.1.32 (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Jackson quote

For the record, the sources I consulted say that:

The Andrew Jackson "let him enforce it" quote is apocryphal, and
It is alleged to have been said in response to Worcester v. Georgia, not Cherokee Nation v. Georgia.

I have update the article accordingly. Gwimpey 23:42, Feb 22, 2005 (UTC)

Would you mind identifying your sources? Most sources that I've seen conflict with both of your assertions. Pencil Pusher 17:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If the Jackson quote is false or in question why include it in the article? It sounds nice but inclusion for effect is pointless. I vote to remove it. Vonsnip 06:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)November 2005 (UTC)

Original Jurisdiction

Marshall assumed, for no stated reason, that Article III's language regarding original jurisdiction constitutes a ceiling, not a floor, for the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. Marshall asserted that the only alternative to a "ceiling" construction of the original jurisdiction clause would require that Congress be allowed complete discretion in determining what sort of cases shall constitute the Court's original jurisdiction, meaning that an act might cause cases "affecting ambassadors" to be heard only on appeal to the Court. Consequently, Marshall finds that the Constitution and the Judiciary Act conflict. Some have questioned whether Marshall may have intentionally construed Article III in a manner calculated to create such a conflict, finding arbitrary Marshall's question-begging conclusion that Congress is not empowered to expand the Court's original jurisdiction.

I took this out for two reasons. First, the way it is written is too POV. Second, it isn't true that (i) Marshall assumes that Art. III creates a ceiling, nor is it true that (ii) he asserts the only alternative is complete discretion. These last two positions are mutually exclusive since an assertion that the only alternative is complete discretion would be a reason for a construction of Art. III as a ceiling, therefore both (i) and (ii) can't be right. However, it turns out that both are wrong, because in the opinion, Marshall states:

If the solicitude of the convention, respecting our peace with foreign powers, induced a provision that the supreme court should take original jurisdiction in cases which might be supposed to affect them; yet the clause would have proceeded no further than to provide for such cases, if no further restriction on the powers of congress had been intended. That they should have appellate jurisdiction in all other cases, with such exceptions as congress might make, is no restriction; unless the words be deemed exclusive of original jurisdiction.

Marshall is saying that if original jurisdiction had been a floor, then Art. III would just say "The supreme court shall have original jurisdiciton in cases X, Y, Z." and end there. Because Art. III goes on to say "In all the other cases...the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction" the clause has to be establishing a ceiling because otherwise the last sentence would be without meaning.

Makes perfect sense to me. The removed text should stay removed. Postdlf 17:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SupremacyClaus's proposed additions

N: These additions are very coherent. They list the malfeasance of John Marshall, the greatest Chief Justice, writing the greatest case at the Supreme Court. John Marshall should have disqualified himself.

You correctly point out, this wrongful decision, in violation of Article I Section 1 of the Constitution, germinated into Dred Scott that led to the Civil War. It is the most catastrophic of all cases. I am now saying it is the most illegal of all cases, as well. It should be reversed for the malfeasance involved.

SC

SC: Thanks for coming to the talk page to discuss the issue. As you are aware, Wikipedia has a strict policy of no original research, so it is not our place to make conclusive statements about (for example) the illegality of a Supreme Court decision based on our own reading of the Constitution. That being said, if there are reputable sources that draw those conclusions, it may be appropriate to discuss those references in the article, providing citations where appropriate. Perhaps we could discuss your additions one at a time here, and edit them into an acceptable form? What do you think? --Nandesuka 01:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Can I just add, because I find SC's vitriol hilarious, that he should first read Planned Parenthood v. Casey so that he understands how absurd it would be to overrule stare decisis merely because it was, in arguendo, an "illegal decision" (with nothing else). Next, he should realize that in throwing out Marbury (i.e., judicial review), he would also have to throw out the last 200 years of american history, for better or worse, including the modern manifestation of federalism (which provides him with basic human rights against all governmental actors), the administrative state (that provides all of the public benefits he enjoys) and the Bush presidency (I'm assuming he voted for Bush and would be upset with this outcome). In other words, relevant scholarly debates compare "what is" with "what ought to be" not with "what ought to have been". Side note, Dred Scott was only a bad decision because it found a substantive due process liberty for the slave owner instead of the slave. Judicial review cuts both ways and we just had a bad jurist on watch that night. This alternative outcome would have changed federalism without a war. 76.91.157.41 (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Words have no underlying meaning? Meanings of words cannot be determined?

Dear fellow editors:

Regarding the following text recently removed from the main article:

More generally, Marshall's argument for the notion of a judicial obligation to strike down laws repugnant to "the constitution" presupposes some sort of underlying meaning to the text of the U.S. Constitution which judges can divine, a highly controversial notion.

I firmly agree with the editor who removed this verbiage. I argue that no serious legal scholar would deny that the text of the Constitution -- the words of the text -- obviously have "some sort of underlying meaning." All real words in all documents, by definition, have "some sort of underlying meaning." Words do not define themselves; they have underlying meaning based on context and usage. I further argue that the idea that judges can "divine" the meaning of the words of the Constitution is not only not highly controversial, the idea is not substantially controversial at all. What may be controversial, depending on the specific court decision being considered, is a particular judge's interpretation of the meaning of particular words.

The idea that the words in the Constitution could have no underlying meaning, or that judges could not "divine" that meaning (i.e., cannot determine the meaning based on concepts of American jurisprudence) is, in my opinion, without legal merit. Famspear 16:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Such tautological reasoning (words=meaning; meaning=context^usage) itself has little merit. The doubt about the ascertainability of the "meaning" of the Constitution has been a significant theme in the writings of Breyer, Posner, and Paul Brest, among many others; it is the view Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia are always responding to. But the author betrays the weakness of his own argument in this statement: I further argue that the idea that judges can "divine" the meaning of the words of the Constitution is not only not highly controversial, the idea is not substantially controversial at all. What may be controversial, depending on the specific court decision being considered, is a particular judge's interpretation of the meaning of particular words. If there is an underlying "meaning" to the Constitution, then in disputes over meaning, it will always be that one judge is right about the meaning and one judge will be wrong. Now, consider the text of the Constitution: "cruel and unusual punishment"; "due process of law". What do these expressions mean in an objective sense?

The author then ends his post with the statement that the view that my argument is "without legal merit." It is this sense of "legal" as something that exists independent of rationality that Posner rightly attacks in Overcoming Law. The idea of some overarching rationality compelling judges to reach a certain result is nonsense. Please Don't Block 05:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Please Don't Block

I'd say the problem lies in what "underlying meaning" means. My guess is that it refers to a secondary level of meaning below the more obvious, surface meaning. Whoever wrote the original passage you refer to seems to have felt that the primary or surface meaning of the words as written should be considered the only legitimate meaning, and that the controversy arose when justices attempted to "read into" possible deeper meanings. I don't think anyone is foolish enough to say that the constitution is meaningless, so I think with "underlying" they were referring to a second layer of meaning. The question of whether that layer exists, and whether it should be considered if it does, may be controversial indeed. -Kasreyn 10:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: Reasoning in the form of "words=meaning; meaning=context^usage" may or may not be tautological and may or may not have merit -- but in any case that reasoning is not "my" reasoning. Obviously, words do not "equal" meaning and meaning does not "equal" context, etc.

And with due respect I don't see a "weakness" in my "argument" in the statements: "I further argue that the idea that judges can "divine" the meaning of the words of the Constitution is not only not highly controversial, the idea is not substantially controversial at all. What may be controversial, depending on the specific court decision being considered, is a particular judge's interpretation of the meaning of particular words."

The question "What do these expressions mean in an objective sense?" seems to imply that there must be (or somehow should be) some sort of "objective" sense to words in the constitution in order for judges to be able to "divine" the meanings of those words. Sorry, but I'm afraid I subscribe to the philosophy of one of my professors, who said "the law is whatever the courts say the law is." After having studied literally thousands of cases, I just don't have a problem with that. That does not mean that I don't sometimes find logical flaws in the "reasoning" of a court decision or otherwise "disagree" with an interpretation -- or dislike an outcome in a particular case.

Also, whatever the term "objective" was intended to mean by my fellow editor in this context, I am not overly troubled by the question of whether there is a true "objective" meaning that can be discerned. I am comforted by the certainty that judges do somehow interpret the law and ascribe to each considered text some sort of meaning ("objective" or otherwise, "correct" or otherwise) every day courts are in session. I may personally agree or disagree with the "rationality" or "logic" behind a particular decision, but I have no doubt that the judge in each case has interpreted the law and rendered a decision. Call me cynical, but I guess I got over that concern that there might not be an "objective" meaning in law about half way into the first semester of law school.

Also, the statement "It is this sense of "legal" as something that exists independent of rationality that Posner rightly attacks [ . . . ]" is interesting. Without commenting on what Posner writes on this topic (as I haven't yet read what Posner wrote), my response is to quote Holmes: "[t]he life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience" and to then paraphrase Holmes: "the life of the law is not rationality; the life of the law is deciding real cases." In this sense, "legality" (the philosophy of law) certainly can and sometimes does exist independently of rationality. Our court decisions are littered with "reasoning" that occasionally contains "logical" errors (and in that sense, a lack of "rationality"). Indeed, I took an entire course in law school on the logic of legal discourse in which we studied case law with a view to this very concern in mind: the presence of objectively illogical reasoning -- used by both advocates and judges, in arguing cases and rendering decisions, and we considered the ethical implications of intentionally using such argumentative forms.

No, my main problem with the deleted language was that I found it too imprecise -- I don't think the language clearly communicated what I believed its author was trying to say. I reiterate my earlier points: All real words in all documents, by definition, have "some sort of underlying meaning." Words do not define themselves; they have underlying meaning based on context and usage. I agree with Kasreyn's comments above: "I don't think anyone is foolish enough to say that the constitution is meaningless, so I think with "underlying" they were referring to a second layer of meaning. The question of whether that layer exists, and whether it should be considered if it does, may be controversial indeed." Yours, Famspear 23:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The "duty to say what the law is"

I have added, to the main article, a famous excerpt from the text of the Marbury v. Madison opinion that I believe brings home, with telling force, the argument that judicial review (especially the duty to look to the written constitution as supreme law) is an essential element of the judicial function. This excerpt from the text is in my opinion one of the strongest parts of Marshall's writing in the case. Famspear 23:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Why couldn't Marbury refile?

If I understand this article correctly, the court ruled that Marbury had a legal right to the delivery of his commission, but he had sued in the wrong place (since the Supreme Court did not have original jurisdiction).

Why, then, could he not refile his case in some lower court that would have original jurisdiction?

For comparison, in the recent case of Rumsfeld v. Padilla, the Supreme Court ruled that Padilla had sued in the wrong jurisdiction. (New York instead of South Carolina). Padilla responded by refiling his case in South Carolina. Why could Marbury not refile his case in some lower court in D.C.? Grover cleveland 08:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd assume that the lower federal courts weren't granted the power to order the remedy, only the Supreme Court, but it was a power that the Supreme Court could not constitutionally have. Which begs the question then as to why Congress only gave it to the Supreme Court...I don't know. If the lower courts had the power however, then he could have refiled, as this dismissal by SCOTUS would have been without prejudice. Postdlf 15:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well actually, Marbury's whole basis was suing under the Judiciary Act of 1789. But this act was found to be in direct opposition to the Constitution, so it was declared partially unconstitutional, and since this was the basis for his case, he really didn't have anything to resue under. That's what I believe, at least. (mastrchf91) 02:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume this was an issue of remedies. Either he had a right to sue or he didn't. Marshall advised that he had a right to sue, so if this were at issue today, he would most likely be able to refile/remove to a lower federal court. I'm not sure which forums were available back then... maybe by the disposition of this case, it would have been a moot issue.Jag149 (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There are some, like Georgetown Law professor Susan Low Bloch, who suggest that the plaintiffs really weren't interested in the commissions. After all, they were to a low level court, and expired in only three years. So why the court filing? Perhaps it was to confirm the supremacy of the court - which had now been "stacked" by the outgoing Federalists. This allowed them to remain in power - to define and legitimize that power via the rendered decision - yet not have anyone overthrow the decision by fervently attempting to enforce the commission. Hence, no appeal and no refile. But the decision rendered did it's deed: it ensured the Federalists would remain in power by confirming the (stacked) Judiciary to be the sole Branch who defined just what any law meant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lance Houseman (talk • contribs) 22:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Marburry vs. Madison

This case was somonly —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.183.126.62 (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

clearer language please

there are too many idioms and too much flowery prose. examples: -no love was lost -waxed and then waned -Like countless streams flowing into a great river that snakes its way to the sea, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.73.12.33 (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

I removed a lot of additions from the last few days that, with all due respect, read more like a novel than an encyclopedia entry on a major legal decision. Much of it violated WP:OR, WP:CITE, and WP:NPOV. JCO312 03:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

This article is well written, provides good background information, is readily accessible to a lay reader such as myself, and is fairly stable after a period requiring protection due to vandalism. However, I believe the following preclude its listing as a good article at the moment:

The following statements are uncited and require attribution, or could easily be construed as original research:
"In Jefferson's opinion, the undelivered commissions, not having been delivered on time, were void." ("Background of the case")

"Most legal scholars agree that Marbury's case does not fit into any of those categories of cases." ("The issue")

"It has become the tradition in U.S. judicial opinions that issues of jurisdiction are addressed first." ("The decision") I presume there will be no trouble verifying this statement.

"Chief Justice Marshall, however, did not address jurisdictional issues until addressing the first two questions presented above, most likely because the jurisdictional issue here also happened to be the constitutional issue". ("The decision")

"They reason that Marshall selectively quoted the Judiciary Act, interpreting it to grant the Supreme Court the power to hear writs of mandamus on original jurisdiction." ("Criticisms")—who reasons? Who are these legal scholars?
The parenthetical list of cases in "Status of the judicial power before Marbury" is quite cumbersome and hampers readability. Could it be reformatted? Are wiki articles available for any of these cases besides Calder v. Bull?
Also in the aforementioned section, a link to the full text of Coke's opinion would be useful to support direct quotes already present.
Please have a look at the Manual of Style, particularly with regard to dates.
As per WP:GTL, the "Further reading" section should follow References and precede External links. References to Smith and Newmyer are incomplete.

Otherwise, I believe this article meets the Good Article criteria and, once these issues are addressed, may be listed. Fvasconcellos 15:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Addressed your issues, mostly. (1) - I found citations for several of these, or rewrote the text to avoid the uncited claim. The only one I couldn't resolve is the one about issues of jurisdiction being addressed first, which you viewed as uncontroversial. (I just don't know how to search for it, unfortunately.) (2) Parenthetical list moved to a footnote. Wiki articles are not available for the other cases. (3) Found a link and added it in a reference. (4) Removed the link on dates like "March 2" standing alone. The one remaining is the "March 4, 1801", in which 1801 is not linked because 1801 was previously linked in the article. (5) Done; I added ISBN numbers for the incomplete refs, assuming this is what you meant. Mango juice^talk 16:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Fvasconcellos 16:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

1801 should be linked; this is an exception to the usual rules for links to allow readers to customize date format. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent citation edits

I thought the general consensus was to have as many different forms of cites as possible, to assist in helping finding any Supreme Court case. Especially in older historical cases, isn't Cranch considered "the" reporter? I'm therefore a bit unsure of 76.10.24.245's recent removals of them as redundant. Instead of starting a revert war, I thought it would be proper to raise that question here. Eggishorn 22:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

At least for the infobox, the whole point of the "citations" line is to list every citation for the case in every reporter and online database, so always restore any removal. Re: article text, it's preferable to only include a U.S. Reports cite to avoid clutter, but it's also standard practice for old cases to include the original Reporter of Decisions cite, even in modern court opinions and documents. Postdlf 00:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Every citation in every reporter and online database" is needlessly redundant. What constitutes a "reporter"? Many of these citation lines include citations to various services (such as Florida Law Week), American Federal Tax Reports, etc. What separates those from, say, the New York Times reproducing the text of the opinion? Or it being on FindLaw, or some website? Where is the line between what's in and what's out? The database citations (such as Lexis) are completely redundant, since any of the databases will find the case with any of the other citation formats; the database citation format is only useful when the opinion isn't yet available in a traditional printed source. The only sources that need be listed are United States Reports, Supreme Court Reporter, Lawyers' Edition, and (maybe) United States Law Week. Anything else is not general enough to be appropriate for an encyclopedia entry, and in any event is contrary to standard practice (neither The Bluebook nor any State-specific citation system I am familiar with calls for citations to anything other than the "big 3" reporters unless it is not available in them). As for citation to the archaic reporters, it is foolish to put that in the citation line in the infobox; nobody is actually using those any more. It should, however, appear in the first reference to the citation in the text because it is standard practice to indicate that parenthetically.

As for the full name of the case, that should simply mirror what the full name of the case is in the reporter. The full name of the case is what the Reporter of Decisions styles it as. Inserting the names of the parties as taken from the case report or historical research of who the parties were is not actually the full name of the case, even if it may be the name of the parties. 76.10.24.245 01:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As this discussion is not specific to this article, but rather deals with formatting for U.S. Supreme Court decision articles generally, it should continue where this issue has also been posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases#Citations Standards. Postdlf 04:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that for the jurisdiction question of citation - U.S.C.A. Const. Art. III § 2, cl. 2 . I would add it myself but the article is locked which is a bit frustrating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iclkennyg (talk • contribs) 18:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How can one cite to something that wasn't?

It is not the case. The template {{fact}} means that there should be a source for the statement: "The case was ultimately unsuccessful for Marbury, who never became a Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia." See WP:A. —זכי ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter}

If possible, I'd prefer to keep the lead section free of citation templates. In the article text itself, we have clearly sourced that Marbury was not victorious in the case, and did not become a Justice of the Peace. If you'd prefer to alter the wording, I have no objection -- perhaps simply changing "The case was ultimately unsuccessful for Marbury, who never became a Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia" to "...for Marbury, who did not become a Justice..." would make this a less problematic statement. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, but where do you see the source? I would like to add that my problem is not the formulation, but whether the fact is true. —זכי ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 07:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Er... I wasn't specific because it's bleeding obvious from any reading of any source describing the details of the case, provided that source is worth its weight in salt. ;) If you really insist, go ahead and use this:

{{cite book |author=James A. Henretta |authorlink= |coauthors=David Brody, and Lynn Dumenil |title=America's History: Volume 1: To 1877 |year=2007 |publisher=Bedford/St. Martin's |location=Boston |isbn=978-0-312-45285-8 |edition=6th edition |pages=218-219}}

– Luna Santin (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added it to the text. —זכי ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 11:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Pleasure doing business. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Reaction at the time?

The article mentions a couple of modern critics of the ruling but I think it would benefit from a paragraph about the reaction at the time. Was there an uproar in Congress? Senators banging their shoes on the tables in a Homeric rage? Or was there a general nodding of heads? Do we have any quotes about Marbury v. Madison from the authors of the Constitution themselves? So much is made today of the intent of the "Framers" that some content on the reaction at the time would give a lot of insight, I think. Tempshill 18:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Congress passed legislation which forced the Supreme Court into recess by statute for 14 months because this case was pending and the Jeffersonians assumed Marshall would order the commissions delivered. This article should certainly include that bit of history. As for the framers, all of the actual signatories to the Constitution never said anything in opposition to judicial review, and a fair number were vocal in support of it. MB83 (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

GA on hold (Sweeps)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

Some statements are not supported by refferences. I marked them with {{fact}} tags.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Ruslik 08:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a question. Why the fact tags? These facts can commonly be found in most U.S. History textbooks, which would suggest the information is uncontroversial, and thus does not need sourcing. --Izno 09:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If they are found in the most text books, it will be easy for you to add necessary citations. In addition, one statement "An ardent Federalist, Marbury was active in Maryland politics and a vigorous supporter of the Adams' presidency" appears to express an opinion about a particular person without a citation, and the last two paragraphs of the article cite opinions of several expert again without inline refs. They all should have citations. Ruslik 16:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Since no action has been taken, I will delist this article. Ruslik 08:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of October 15, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

Ruslik 08:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you some sort of administrator here, Ruslik? The article seems good to me, even by the standards you cited. As has been pointed out, facts that are uncontroversial do not need to be cited, and so you demanding a citation to those facts and not getting one doesn't make it a bad article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.228.141.186 (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, per Wikipedia policy, all uncited facts can be removed at any time. If it's so obvious, then go cite it yourself. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The use of The Term Repulican Party for democratic-repulican party

I do belive it is in error to call the democratica-republican party republicans and would be more accurate to call them democrats for there is a direct line of association between the older democratic-republican party and the democrats of today and there is no direct corolation between the repulicans and the democratic-repulicans. Jefferson is conceidered the father of the democratic pary, not the repulican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodwilco (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue of Federalism

Immediately the young nation of the United States got rid of its monarch in the Declaration of Independence, the desire for a strong executive capable of making decisions rather than deliberations resurfaced.

In the Constitution of the United States, Article I Section 8, Congress is granted the exclusive power to legislate and all the power necessary and sufficient to run the government some of which it then delegates to the Executive through the Advice and Consent of the Senate and some of which is ursurped by the Judiciary.

The concept of Separation of Powers and Judicial Review have over the last two centuries become paired slippery slopes leaving Congress little more than a ridge line to traverse.

It would be nice in this article to see some discussion of how the Federalist Society has preached this doctine to academia with its law professors, reinforced it with the mentoring of the best and rightest of young lawyers and law clerks by the Federalist judges they work for, (John Yoo clerking for Clarence Thomas) then passed it into legislation with the assistence of the politicians many of these young lawyers become with sucess in their careers, and then added to its gains with claims of established precedent over the years.

This heritage of Marbury vs Madison needs to be understood as underlying the constitutional disasters of the last eight years continuing into the present Congressional surrender of the power of the purse to the Secretary of the Treasury in the Executive branch. Rktect (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

i HIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.174.188 (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"Republican Party" vs "Democratic Republican" Party:

I agree with the writer who objected to the term "Republican" as used in the following passage (quoting from the entry itself): "The newly sworn-in Republican congress immediately set about voiding the Judiciary Act of 1801 with their own Judiciary Act of 1802 ..."

The term should be "Democratic Republican Party" and not "Republican Party". According to Wikipedia itself, the Republican Party was not formed until 1854 and was formed as the "principal" opposition to the Democratic Party:

"The Republican Party is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with the Democratic Party. It is often called the Grand Old Party or the GOP. Founded in Ripon, Wisconsin, in 1854 by anti-slavery expansion activists and modernizers, the Republican Party quickly surpassed the Whig Party as the principal opposition to the Democratic Party. It first came to power in 1860 with the election of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency and presided over the American Civil War and Reconstruction. Today, the party supports a conservative and/or center-right platform, with further foundations in supply-side fiscal policies and social conservatism."

Source : Wikipedia Entry for "Republican Party".

Incorrect info in lead

"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 the statute upon which he based his claim, the Judiciary Act of 1801, was unconstitutional."

Since the page is protected could someone correct this to the Judiciary Act of 1789. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djstrangeways (talk • contribs) 15:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is correct as far as I know. The Judiciary Act of 1801 was the so-called Midnight Judges Act, which in part led to the Marbury v. Madison case in 1803. Do you have a source that says was actually the Act of 1789?DCmacnut <> 15:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The rest of the article repeatedly says it was the Act of 1789.92.24.105.198 (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Marbury actually sued under the Judiciary Act of 1789, in which Congress granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over petitions for writs of mandamus. The Court's decision was that this provision of the 1789 act was unconstitutional. Postdlf (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(od) I stand corrected. Someone needs to make some major edits to Midnight Judges Act. It makes reference to the 1789 act as well, but by including a major paragraph on Marbury v. Madison gives the reader a false impression to the contrary. Perhaps we should remove all mention of Marbury v. Madison from that article?DCmacnut <> 22:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I just gave it a quick read, and it doesn't appear incorrect to me and it does relate. Marbury's case was a consequence of the 1801 act, in that his appointment was made pursuant to it, but the writ by which Marbury sought relief in the Supreme Court was established by the 1789 act. So this case was a factual consequence of the 1801 act, but the Court's decision legally hinged upon the constitutionality of the writ provided by the 1789 act. Postdlf (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing the Opening Introduction (May 2006 - March 2009)

This is a horrible article. it doesnt explain ANYTHING. I had to do a project on Marbury v. Madison, and I almost failed it. This was the page we were supposed to use, and I had to read it about ten times to get any information. too jumbled up. out of order. disorganized. For better information on this topic go to: about.com . they will have hat you need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.21.124 (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC) This is a terrible article. It's not even clear, after reading a page and half of material, who sued whom! I read 3/4th of it and didn't even understand what the deal is all about. There's a discussion on the background of the case but the first paragraph should quickly and succintly state:

who was sued by whom and why
result
historical implications

So that somebody who's interested in a quick overview will know what's going on. I swear, I read the article and I had to go to google answers to seek a REAL, informative explanation. Terrible.

Coontie 15:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I largely support Coontie's sentiment: this article is not the best and requires improvement, particularly the opening paragraph. I came from Commission looking for an answer was somebody forced to deliver a piece of paper with the commission on it. I've read to the end, including the section "Decision", and still I don't know if that piece of paper was (ordered to be) delivered so I'm not even going to try to correct it myself. Waerloeg 04:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think too much detail is being put in the opening. The main thing that should be mentioned are the historical implications (i.e., Judicial review). This was the most important US Supreme Court case in history, and it's importance has nothing to do with who Marbury was, why he was suing, or what a commission is. A brief summary of the details of the case is all that is necessary in the opening, like this. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Another source. The Constitutional Journey of "Marbury v. Madison" G. Edward White Virginia Law Review, Vol. 89, No. 6, Marbury v. Madison: A Bicentennial Symposium. (Oct., 2003), pp. 1463-1573. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-6601%28200310%2989%3A6%3C1463%3ATCJO%22V%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.74.171.252 (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above sentiments. Which is why, with much daring, I largely re-wrote the introduction on Jan 16, 2009. It's now almost 3 months later, and with valuable contributions and examination from other editors, I think we've got something that works well. Therefore, I suggest that this section of the talk page be archived no later than 6 months from now. It's comments and criticisms are now very much out of date. For more info see Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines Help:Archiving_a_talk_page -- preceding signed by Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I moved this to the bottom of the page, where it should have been in the first place. I also feel obliged to point out the absurdity of the complaint about "who sued whom" in an article titled "Marbury v. Madison," which ought at least be a clue that a "Marbury" sued a "Madison." JCO312 (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is an absurd complaint, and bursting with frustration. It's also a very, very old complaint -- almost 3 years old, which is why it was located near the top of the talk page. But looking at the introduction the way it was previously written, I think it's understandable why someone might be confused. It had the names of a lot of people shoehorned (crammed) into very long sentences, and worse, it had very little general perspective. The previous introduction didn't answer the question of "why should anyone care to read this article?" "What's so remarkable about it?" The new introduction answers those questions. -- signed by Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms

"A minority of legal scholars?" Who comprises this proclaimed minority? Where is the source which identifies them as the minority in this case? Wouldn't it just be simpler (and more accurate?) to simply state that "Critics of the decision have raised questions about..."? Which is more important, that there is criticism of the case and what those criticisms are, or that the critics compose a supposed minority (at least for the time being)? Which criticism is the most minor of the minorities? There is the appearance that the criticisms warrant little to no serious consideration because of the language of "minority" used in the section's lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.140.45 (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This should not read "A minority of scholars." In fact, criticisms of Marshall's interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1789 are mainstream in legal scholarship (see, e.g., Sanford Levinson, Why I do not not teach Marbury, 38 Wake Forest L. Rev. 553, 563 (2003); Larry Kramer, The People Themselves 123 (2004)). --Orsino10 (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Logical problem?

The text quotes a source saying that in response to the Federalist attempt to restructure the courts the Jeffersonians (amongst other things) "canceled the Supreme Court term scheduled for June of that year [1802] ... seeking to delay a ruling on the constitutionality of the repeal act until months after the new judicial system was in operation." Not being a legal scholar, does this make sense? After all, is it not Marbury v. Madison (which occurs after the Judiciary act of 1802) that established SCOTUS's ability to rule on the constitutionality of legislative actions? In which case, why would the Jeffersonians be concerned, in 1802, with SCOTUS declaring their law unconstitutional, when SCOTUS hadn't recognized its own power to do so until 1803? Like I said, I'm not an expert, and so I'm not removing this, as I hope that someone who is can justify its inclusion; but, I thought I would point it out in case it is as glaringly illogical as it first appears. If it does make sense, someone might clarify how that is the case in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.38.227 (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

In spite of attempts by many to act like Marbury came out of nowhere (it makes a better story that way), it was generally agreed by most beforehand that the Supreme Court could declare laws unconstitutional, it was even discussed in the Federalist papers. Marbury is pretty much just notable for being the first time the Court exercised the power. This should probably be pointed out in the article.71.202.183.50 (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

New Book on the Subject

A new book on this subject was published in February of 2009 by Cliff Sloan and David McKean. The book, The Great Decision: Jefferson, Adams and the Battle for the Supreme Court, would be a good fit for the Further Reading section of the page. ISBN 10 is: 1586484265. I would add it, but I have a conflict of interest, as I have a business relationship with Mr. Sloan. Tombridge (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I say go ahead and add it; I know it's a major release and not self-published or any nonsense like that. Wasn't one of the authors on the Colbert Report promoting it recently? Thanks for your concern about conflicts of interest, btw. postdlf (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There must be some discussion out there about the legal quality of the Marbury v Madison decision

Or does everyone think this decision was as sound legally as it was expedient politically?

Why didn't Marshall just decline the case? I hear that he probably wrote the opinion before the case was heard, and that Madison did not bother to send (a solicitor) to represent the Executive's position before the court.
His opinion was that the court did not have jurisdiction. Why examine the merits of the case? (oops: I see that's in the article.)
Did the Court have jurisdiction? The very next sentence in Article III, after the list of original jurisdictions, refers to exceptions to jurisdiction that Congress might make. Is it sound to conclude that Congress can make no 'additions' to the list of original jurisdictions, when the entire scheme of inferior courts is subject to the whim of Congress, in which case, the Supreme Court would have original jurisdiction in all matters.
SCOTUS as the decider as to constitutionality: Add to this that Marshall later offered to make court decisions subject to legislative override, in a letter to Chase (I believe) when Marshall was hoping to defuse the impeachment of Chase, it makes the principle that is "etched in stone" in the article seem a little less than absolute to even Marshall.

( Martin | talk • contribs 20:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC))

I don't know that you'll find any SCOTUS decision that no one has questioned. Notwithstanding that no one today would ask for Marbury to be overruled, academic critiques are out there. You might even be able to find them online. I think I remember Louis Michael Seidman seriously asking whether it was just a skillfully worded ipse dixit when I had him for con law; if you have access (i.e., if you are not stranded on a tiny island like me), try searching law reviews or for the textbook(s) he authored. Biographies of Marshall probably go into his thought process and what he "really" decided it based on too.

On your first point, in a sense that's just what Marshall did: decide that the Court lacked the power to hear the case...albeit by deciding it actually had a much bigger power. Outside of such "trickery", I don't think the Court had the ability to decline the case in the sense you mean. It was predicated on supposed original jurisdiction (not on discretionary writ of certiorari as most cases the Court hears are), and as with a trial court there's no discretion to just say "sorry, I'm not interested"; there must be a legal basis for dismissing whether or not on the merits. And I think even the Court's appellate jurisdiction was less discretionary back then that it is now. postdlf (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes thanks for comments regarding cert and declining cases in which you have original jurisdiction. Since then I see in the decision that Marshall says that the delivery of the certificate is not needed. (A commission is transmitted to a person already appointed, not to a person to be appointed or not, as the letter enclosing the commission should happen to get into the post office and reach him in safety, or to miscarry.) Certainly people have seen this. Wouldn't this mean, that even if the court feels it cannot force the certificate to be transmitted, such transmission was not a requirement for the appointment to be effective. Sigh. Thanks for the reference. I will look for it. Would overruling Marbury mean anything more that the court issuing a belated mandamus, for, say, his heirs? Could they apply for a copy of the certificate?! :-) He had a right to a piece of paper, which he didn't get, but he also had a right to the office, which he did get. ( Martin | talk • contribs 03:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

Overruling Marbury at this point would mean the Court ruling that Article III sets a floor, not a ceiling, on its original jurisdiction power, such that statutes like the provision it struck in the Judiciary Act would now be constitutional. Not too likely, because such a case could only come about if Congress tried to enlarge the Court's jurisdiction in some way, and it would require a sea change in how the Court views the constitution. Even less likely would be the Court reversing Marbury by rejecting broader principles such as that the Supreme Court has the inherent power of judicial review, or that a law enacted by Congress that is contrary to the Constitution is no law. Obviously not going to happen. And there's no way to revisit the particular facts of the case for a number of reasons, one of which is that no one living has any concrete stake in whether Marbury got his commission, not even his heirs (I actually did meet a descendant of Marbury once. True story.).

As for Marshall's comments on what was required for the commission to become effective, that's best considered dicta as how the Court disposed of the case left the merits of Marbury's claim legally undecided. postdlf (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 April 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Criticism last sentence. President Obama was not a Constitutional professor, he was a lecturer.

98.193.192.123 (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Done --Cybercobra (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Why was the paragraph on the Obama statement added at all?

This seems of dubious value in an article about a Supreme Court decision more than 200 years before. It's not as if this is the first time any president has ever made statements along this line. Surely this is more appropriate material in an article about the health care debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.197 (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I think that it should be under an article about the health care debate too with a link to this page perhaps. I don't disagree whith the thought of it being a critisim of Marbury v Madison, but it just doesn't seem to fit there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.179.218.162 (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Consistency with Judicial review in the United States

I'm not qualified to make any content edits here, but there seems to be a massive inconsistency with the first paragraph and some later content of the page, where some of the contents of the article Judicial review in the United States are summarized (respecting history prior to Marbury). In particular, I find in that article:

"Professor William Treanor, concluded: 'The sheer number of these decisions not only belies the notion that the institution of judicial review was created by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury, it also reflects [prior] widespread acceptance and application of the doctrine.'^[1]"

References

^ See Treanor, William, "Judicial Review Before Marbury," 58 Stanford Law Review 455, 458 (2005).

I was also taught in school that Marbury was a landmark case establishing judicial review, but it would appear this is an oversimplified notion and that the opening sentences here should be more precise to reflect that this was just a formal statement of an already accepted principle. Perhaps the case should be put into its proper perspective and then the fact that it is often credited with an importance beyond this can be addressed? QuantumOfHistory (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

International cosequences

International consequences of this United States event are not cited. I think the claim that it had should be removed or be substantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilberth (talk • contribs) 05:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect lead needs changing by a registered user

This is text taken from the article, and I have highlighted text which I think is inaccurate, not supported by the citations and/or gives an improper citation source.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law and in the history of law worldwide. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. It was also the first time in the history of the Western world that a court invalidated a law by declaring it "unconstitutional".[1][2]

Firstly, as the article rightly says further down "...the concept of judicial review has ancient roots. The idea that courts could nullify statutes originated in England .....", which is true.

Secondly, I have checked the two references cited to see if they back up this claim. As far as I read them, they do not.

I don't know whether the intention was to pivot the argument on the word "constitutional" on the grounds that England has no formal document similar to the US constitution, but even if it is, this would be wrong because England does have a well understood set of laws and documents of deed that are written down that comprise its constitution. The references to this being significant in a context outside of US jurisdiction needs to be struck from the article. I cannot do it as the article is locked from edits to unregistered readers.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.230.158 (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Scalia says Marbury v. Madison was overruled

Hey there, editors. So, I was doing my regular perusal of YouTube for things of interest when I came across a video of Scalia, J. talking to Chris Wallace on Fox. An interesting conversation, for sure, but around 17:00, Scalia gives this article's subject as an example of a case that SCOTUS "overruled". I'm trying to find which case he's referring to, but I thought I'd mention it here so others could look into it too. Ender and Peter 21:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstood. Scalia was asked by Wallace how common it was for a Supreme Court decision to "overturn" an Act of Congress, i.e., rule it unconstitutional. Scalia gave Marbury as an example of a case in which the Court did that, and used the term "overruled", not saying that the Court has ever overruled Marbury. Just some sloppy use of terminology from both of them, but perfectly understandable in context as to what they were talking about. postdlf (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right actually, as I look at it again. He was talking about the Supreme Court overruling acts of Congress and it was just said in a confusing way... Ender and Peter 15:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Question

I wanted to know if the Supreme Court could have compelled the delivery of the commission if the issue had arisen from the appeal of a lower court decision? So the problem was William Marbury did not seek a legal remedy properly? Jokem (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Where it says "appointed 16 Federalist circuit judges and 42 Federalist justices of the peace to offices created by the Judiciary Act of 1801" it is inaccurate. There were TWO acts which caused this to happen. The Judiciary Act AND the Organic Act. How do we fix that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.246.0.10 (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Marbury redirect

There is a link to William Marbury (which is a good idea), but it just redirects to this article (which is bad). Someone should either remove the redirect, link, or make a stub page for Mr. Marbury. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.97.166.114 (talk • contribs) 00:37, February 9, 2006.

Attention Editors: The article states that Marshall remained as acting Secretary of State at the personal request of President Adams - this is incorrect. It was actually at the request of President T Jefferson who requested it of him the same day he was sworn into office on March 4, 1801. Source: Constitutional Law - 17th edition. Auth: Sullivan/Gunther. ISBN: 978--7-59941-752-3. Page 9 - end of first full paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.78.179 (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Status of the judicial power before Marbury section is too long

The section is too long, does not shed light on the case itself, and breaks up the flow of the article. Unless there is an objection, I intend to remove it and rescue a paragraph or so of relevant information or at least radically shorten the section.--Tznkai (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I hereby state my disagreement with removing any of the text in the "judicial power before Marbury" section. What is happening in this nation today is a much more serious look at this idea of "supremacy" of the SCOTUS. All of the information in this entire article needs to be retained as essentially informative to this current question. I am thrilled and pleased with the content of the current article. My own analysis is that the Marbury v. Madison case illustrates that both Jefferson and Marshall were correct. The case was a clear and cogent instance of the legislature attempting to change the constitution through a simple act of legislation as opposed to using the Article V process. It is also an illustration of one of the three co-equal branches of government defending itself against incursions of another branch through the use of the constitution. It just so happens that the executive branch of the government (Jefferson) was in agreement with the judicial branch (Marshall) and the legislative branch was "the odd man out". Contrast this with the Citizens United case in which the judicial branch has created a "right to free speech" for incorporated entities without any constitutional text on the subject whatsoever, and then makes use of this "common law" to extend constitutional protections to such incorporate entities. Corporate Personhood is common law and can be and has been overruled by the legislative branches of government when the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was signed into law by Bush. Incorporated entities (institutionns) other than those specified in the constitution have no "right to to free speech". And individuals have such right because the First Amendment clearly says so. Institutional rights cannot be created by common law. Statutory law trumps common law especially when (as in the Marbury case) the statute(s) is/are IN the constitution. A non existent right cannot be "abridged" and thus a proper interpretation of the First Amendment precludes extra-constitutional institutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikcob (talk • contribs) 17:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Mikob, that is an interesting legal theory, but it is also original research. More to the point, it isn't relevant to this article in particular, but rather to the subject of judicial review in particular. As a whole, the section dirupts a naive reader trying to learn about Marbury by introducing concepts and arguments without context.--Tznkai (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Tznkai: while I might agree with the assertion of original research concerning my own evaluation of the Marbury case, that text was offered only in support of why I do not want anything removed from the entire collection of material on United States jurisprudence and the primacy of law in this country. If you feel that the text in question (the text under "judicial power before Marbury") would best be kept under the article on "Judicial Review" then please move it INTACT or with very few edits and reference it from here. Major deletions are NEVER a good idea. -- Mikcob — Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like its already there: Judicial review in the United States.--Tznkai (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I cannot find any of the text of what is now "judicial power before Marbury" in the article on Judicial Review. Looks to me like the whole "judicial power before Marbury" section should be moved as is to the Judicial Rreview article and placed immediately ahead of the "Judicial review before the Constitution" section or in place of the "Judicial review before the Constitution" section.The Trucker (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

OOPs! I was looking at "Judicial Review in the United states" as opposed to "Judicial review". But the same general idea is applicable. I do not want to lose the text about Sir Edward Coke and, more importantly, the historical record about judicial review surrounding the creation and ratification of the United States Constitution.The Trucker (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2014

This edit request to Marbury v. Madison has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The source for the statement "authorized to hold courts and cognizance of personal demands of the value of 20 dollars" is listed as "Ch.6, Sec. 4, Judiciary Act of 1801" which is incorrect.

Firstly, it was chapter 4 that dealt with the courts, not chapter 6 (Source: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=002/llsl002.db&recNum=126). Second, this source doesn't have anything to do with the statement referenced in the wikipedia article. The statement "authorized to hold courts and cognizance of personal demands of the value of 20 dollars" is found in "Sec. 3d, Marbury v. Madison,AMDOCS: www.vlib.us." which is listed in the notes as reference 6.

Looks like the source section is all messed up and needs a lot of correction. Mikemike616 (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Partly done. I have changed it to chapter 4. The rest will be done shortly. DJAMP4444 22:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Modern Arguments Added and Edit Removed

I don't think Wikipedia should be allowing foreigners a right to edit american history and blocking the Edit ability. That's vandalsim.

In section "Status of the judicial power before Marbury" the arguments are needlessly circular.

1) Congress has limitations in the Constitution, and must by vast majority repeal a law before presuming to step over it (assuming ratification success).

2) A balance of power is clearly spelt out in the Constitution and in previous founding documents, that decision pass from post to post, that no one post would rule over protest of all other.

3) The Constitution clearly gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction in deciding legal cases between the States and within Congress.

Arguing whether Congress can by vote ignore existing law for agenda, is circular.

Arguing if the Supreme court can revise law without repeal is circular.

POINT: the circular arguments would only be interesting if quoted from historic figures. modern scholars adding circular arguments which cannot be removed or disputed is an ill deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.202.186 (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Exceptions clause

The Exceptions clause is in Article III Section 2 of the Constitution. Exceptions to what? It could be exceptions to the division spelled out between original and appellate jurisdiction, rather than to appellate jurisdiction itself. Unfortunately, I don't know of any writings to this effect. A restriction on appellate jurisdiction would today be called a restriction on granting cert. Quite strange to me. ( Martin | talk • contribs 13:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC))

So what happened?

Did Marbury ask a lower court (with original jurisdiction) for his mandamus? Did he get it? Such an obvious question needs an answer for this page to reach 'good article' status! Doops | talk 05:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Midnight Judges

I think its misleading to say Adams appointed these judges on March 3rd. While some were confirmed by the Senate on March 3rd, Adams made all of his nominations in February. The entire "Midnight Judges" narrative is an embellishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiggityGals (talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marbury v. Madison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050826085748/http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/8.htm to http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/8.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marbury v. Madison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125024217/http://www.lawnix.com/cases/marbury-madison.html to http://www.lawnix.com/cases/marbury-madison.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed added paragraph

I had difficulty distilling the essence of this case on a quick read. A summary of my understanding, below, clarifies things, at least for me. I propose adding this paragraph to the introduction. What do legal scholars think?

The Marbury v. Madison decision expanded the power of the Supreme Court in general, by announcing that the 1789 law which gave the Court jurisdiction in this case was unconstitutional. Marbury thus lost his case, which the Court said he should have won, but, in explaining its inability to provide Marbury the remedy it said he deserved, the Court established the principle of judicial review, i.e., the power to declare a law unconstitutional.^[1]

^ McBride, Alex (December 2006). "The Supreme Court ,The Court and Democracy, Landmark Cases, Marbury v. Madison (1803)". Thirteen/WNET New York. Retrieved 22 September 2017.

HowardMorland (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I added the paragraph to the article. HowardMorland (talk) 04:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Marbury vs Madison

Perhaps this case should be viewed in the light of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, (Madison, Jefferson via Brekinridge), 
proposing nullification of the Alien and Sedition acts.

In effect, Marshall, amplifying the doctrine of judicial review, overrode the doctrine of nullification.
This severely limited the powers of the States.

Bruce Shavey

26 February 201871.203.225.114 (talk) 10:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Rework incoming

I plan to do a rework of this article over the next few weeks. Its current state is mediocre at best, and given Marbury's importance this is very undesirable. My plan is to follow the general format of the Bakke case (the highest importance SCOTUS case that currently has FA status), with general sections something like: Background and facts, Issues, Decision, and Impact. White Whirlwind 咨 06:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Add to Further Reading -- Trachtman

Adding another book that includes Marbury v. Madison look inside on page 22. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This GA review passed, but I just wanted to add this archive template --DannyS712 (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Marbury v. Madison/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DannyS712 (talk · contribs) 06:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article! This is my first GA review, but I hope it won't be my last. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Delisting discussion: Talk:Marbury v. Madison/Archive 1#GA on hold (Sweeps)

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
OR may be slightly problematic, will review specific sections of concern more in-depth

Note also that, while Earwig's copyvio detector suggests a 73.3% confidence that there is a copyright violation, the two sources that it is most confident about are transcripts of the case. Having read through the issues detected as violations from the other sources (including the entirety of the third), I believe that no violation occurred.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
no clear issues
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Frequent small improvements, but that is not a negative factor
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
a - all images used are in the public domain
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Notes

Things that should be improved/fixed/looked at:

Are the "analysis" and "impact" sections partially original research?
Can there be more variety in the images used? (see MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, which says to "Strive for variety." Currently, almost all of the images are similar - portraits of old white men, and while I understand that they are all relevant, I'd prefer a bit more variety.)

Based on a combination of the sources that White Whirlwind shared with me off-wiki, as well as the minor addition of more variation within the images (here), I think this now qualifies as a GA. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, this article has passed its GA nomination --DannyS712 (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

@White whirlwind: I have placed this review on hold. Can you look at the two issues I have (explained above)? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Hi, thanks so much for the review. Let me try and address these:

1) Can you give me more explanation into why you think there are OR issues in those sections? Do you think I'm combining sources in a way that draws my own conclusions? I'm not completely clear on what you mean, and would appreciate you fleshing your concerns out for me so I can understand them better.

2) Portraits of old white men: this doesn't bother me, really. An article on pre-modern China will probably have mostly portraits of old Chinese men, and an article on a dispute of pre-modern Africa will probably have mostly portraits of old black men. Anyway, your point about image variety is a fair one. Give me a week or two to look for some more on Commons and maybe Flickr.

Again, thanks for the review. White Whirlwind 咨 03:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@White whirlwind: I completely understand why the images are mostly white men, but if we are going to have so many images, I'd prefer to have something else too. I'll go over the OR issues in a minute. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

For the OR, I'm concerted about the limited use of online, easily checked sourcing. The claims that

Besides its inherent legal questions, the case of Marbury v. Madison also created a difficult political dilemma for Marshall and the rest of the Supreme Court.[33] If the Court ruled in favor of Marbury and issued a writ of mandamus ordering Madison to deliver the commission, Jefferson and Madison would probably have simply ignored the order, which would have made the Court look impotent and emphasized the "shakiness" of the judiciary.[33] On the other hand, a plain and simple ruling against Marbury would have given Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans a clear political victory.[33]

cannot be verified by anyone without the book itself, and their extreme language and prominent placement (at the start of the section) concern me, among other selections from the article. Is there any way to include more online sources? I know offline is allowed, but it makes it harder to verify. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@DannyS712: I must admit that I'm somewhat baffled by this. The guidelines at WP:Verifiability, WP:Identifying reliable sources, and WP:No original research do not—and, to my knowledge, never have—mention any preference for electronic or online sources. For example: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. [...] Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." (from WP:SOURCEACCESS). In fact, there has long been a tacit bias against such sources, because they have (historically, but gradually less so) been less likely to have been professionally edited and/or peer-reviewed, which have always been at the core of the gold standard for reliability of sources (see WP:SOURCES and similar guides).

Regarding the paragraph you quoted, that's from McCloskey's (Levinson is now listed as his co-author, as he's taken over updating the book since McCloskey's death) very well known book on the Supreme Court that's published by a major academic press. It's in almost every major library, especially university libraries. I wouldn't be too worried about it.

Does that answer your concerns? Can I be of more help? White Whirlwind 咨 20:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@White whirlwind: My problem was just that I cannot verify these statements, or most of the content on this page for that matter. I'm just not comfortable promoting this to GA without independent confirmation that these claims are, indeed, supported. Do you know anyone with access to these books that can confirm the content and/or provide me with a copy? (the reason I suggested using more online sources was so that I could then check them). Sorry for the misunderstanding. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Ah, I see. First, for the McCloskey one, try Google Books. You can find many things on there. As for the rest, we aren't always able to get everything. Here's what the guidelines say:

"Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained.

At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary). If you can not access most of the references you should confirm the most important content of the article via alternative means. Reviewers can confirm information from sources they cannot access at the resource exchange or request translations at Wikipedia:Translation."

That's from WP:Reviewing good articles. I personally disagree with the close paraphrasing part, but you get the overall gist. White Whirlwind 咨 04:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@White whirlwind: Before I go to the resource exchange, or try to track down the sources on my own, do you (or another editor you know) have copies of the major sources used? --DannyS712 (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@DannyS712: yes, email me privately. White Whirlwind 咨 17:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Second Further Reading Revert -- Tushnet

I restored [1] deletion, which has the edit comment: "Why suggest further reading a book on famous dissents in an article about a case that was a unanimous decision?" Because the book includes Marbury v. Madison in chapter 1. (Use "See Inside" to look at table of contents.) I understand it sounds like it is only about dissenting opinions, but as you can see, there is more to it. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: I see, I did not know that. Thanks for correcting me. White Whirlwind 咨 17:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Marbury Revisionism

FWIW: Prof. Keith Whittington of Princeton is offering a different take on Marbury. See https://reason.com/2019/05/24/how-often-has-the-u-s-supreme-court-struck-down-a-federal-law and this piece https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/Marbury_Molehill_0.pdf which contains this paragraph: "Recent revisionist literature on Marbury, however, has challenged that received wisdom. Revisionists have questioned the importance of Marbury in establishing judicial review, the originality of its arguments, and the scope of the power that Marshall was claiming for the Court. Such work has led the constitutional historian Michael Klarman "to prompt other scholars to reconsider prevalent assumptions about the importance of canonical Supreme Court rulings generally and the 'great' Marshall Court decisions specifically." " Bill Harshaw (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Dispute re scope of judicial review in LEDE

Before you delete my contribution again I would appreciate an explanation of what you believe it means that judicial review means "American courts have the power to strike down...some government actions". It is not explained by the article or I was unable to find if it is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peasetort (talk • contribs) 13:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Peasetort: @White whirlwind: This disagreement has to do with the series of reverts found here. I suggest each of you cite WP:RS--and even better, provide quotes--that support your claim. White whirlwind has already provided some with edit summary:

the notion that judicial review only covers congressional legislation is patently false; see e.g. Tribe (2000) at 179, which is cited in the article.[2]

and addition of WP:RS to the WP:LEDE:

^[1]

References

^ Chemerinsky (2019), § 2.2.2, p. 47.

--David Tornheim (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't need to locate my copy of Tribe to know he didn't say anything about "laws, statutes and government actions". Tribe and Chemerinsky won't diverge on this. I will eat my hat if you can demonstrate otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peasetort (talk • contribs) 11:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

How long should I wait for an explanation of why the article says the Supreme Court can strike down "some government actions that violate the US constitution?" Does that mean that the Supreme Court can't strike down some government actions that violate the constitution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peasetort (talk • contribs) 12:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

To Peasetort: First, please sign your talk page posts, that's a required practice here on Wikipedia and is done by adding four tildes to the end of your final sentence. Having the bot do it looks weird. Second, Chemerinsky (2019), which is probably the preeminent single-volume treatise in this field today, says the following at page 47: "Marbury established the power of the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of federal executive actions and of federal statutes." I don't have an electronic version of Tribe to quote from but I added that citation when I had the physical copy. I'm not sure why you find the inclusion of executive actions to be problematic — Marshall's mandamus discussions touch on it repeatedly and that aspect should have been covered in any law school Con Law course, including yours. The "some" in "some government actions" obviously refers to the ministerial–discretional duty distinction Marshall discusses at length in the opinion. That is briefly discussed in the "Legacy" section. White Whirlwind 咨 20:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't find the inclusion of executive actions to be problematic. What I find most problematic is the inclusion of "some government actions". Most people, including Chemerinsky (who you quote above), don't feel that it is worth mentioning that the court can't review the constitutionality of vetos. It may be problematic to highlight a never-mentioned by anyone (ever) part of the case, but I don't care very much about that. I can't speak for anyone else about this. It is more a problem why you would revert the addition of "federal" even though you know it's from the above Chemerinsky quote. Baffling. Peasetort (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Peasetort: Thanks for signing your post this time. It's common for people to join Wikipedia all fired up and with an axe to grind, and it takes time to learn the ropes. Now, what is "baffling" is your challenge keeps changing—first it was that judicial review only covers congressional legislation, then it was "Chemerinsky won't diverge from Tribe [and support a proposition for "government action", which he does, though I'll refrain from enforcing your hat-eating commitment], and now it's that the word "some" is too confusing to lay readers because somehow they'll be informed enough to know that vetoes and nominations aren't reviewable (Twitter feeds from the Kavanaugh hearing timeline should be enough to correct that misconception) but yet will be dreadfully confused over whether judicial review was different prior to Hunter's Lessee. I also don't understand how "You can't speak for anyone else about this" but yet in your prior edit summary you said "half the readers of this article vowed never to use Wikipedia again after reading this sentence". You describe yourself as a "retired legal professional", so I'm sure you are (or were at one time) capable of being focused and coherent, so let's just be nice and do that here, shall we?

I think the language is fine as it is. Do you agree, David Tornheim? White Whirlwind 咨 05:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, this made me laugh out loud. You think that because I changed the lede to reflect words Chemerinsky felt were important enough to include, and exclude words that only you believed were important enough to include, I have "an axe to grind." You think you can change entirely standard definitions by getting your friends to agree with you and half the readers (at least) won't notice? Who do think reads Marbury v. Madison? The most despicable part is your response muddying the waters and insulting me. You won't be hearing from me again. Goodbye. Peasetort (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Peasetort: First, Chemerinsky was cited for the proposition that more than just legislation was covered, since you erroneously suggested in this edit that it was only "congressional legislation." Remember, Chemerinsky was defining Marbury's holding, not summarizing the scope of judicial review. But you started arguing about only having "federal", which goes to the separate issue of a proper summary of the term "judicial review"—whether it needed to constrain itself to the pre-1816, pre-Hunter's Lessee law. For the purposes of this article, that is more a matter of editorial wording than substance and doesn't truly touch on the sources we were discussing here. Try to keep things straight and cogent.

Moreover, me asking David Tornheim has nothing to do with getting "friends" to agree with me—I've rarely interacted with him, though I'm sure he's a perfectly nice editor—it's because WP:CONSENSUS is one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, and when there's a dispute we must get multiple editors involved to try and arrive at a consensus. If that doesn't work for you, you may want to find another hobby to pursue other than Wikipedia editing. White Whirlwind 咨 18:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The line as it is currently written should be improved. I asked you: "Does that mean that the Supreme Court can't strike down some government actions that violate the constitution?" Your answer was: "The "some" in "some government actions" obviously refers to the ministerial–discretional duty distinction Marshall discusses at length in the opinion." With those facts laid out, you need to read the case again. This distinction is based on separation of powers. What the case says is: "in cases in which the Executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable". That is not the same as saying the Supreme Court can only strike down "some government actions that violate the constitution". It's up to you whether you want to accept my input or not, there are millions of other articles.Peasetort (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Again, I think you're mixing up the issues here: the "some government actions" language is intended as a summary of the doctrine of judicial review—not the holding of Marbury—and is meant as a "gloss" for non-expert readers. I thought I described that in my last comment, where I discussed how Chemerinsky was cited to counter the proposition that it would be better to limit the gloss to "congressional legislation", which the doctrine was never limited to at any point in history, whether it be pre-Hunter's Lessee or some other time.

The reason for my gloss may not have been clear earlier, so let me explain it here—WP:LINKING (part of the Manual of Style) says: "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so." A lot of editors fail to do this, but it's an excellent practice to adopt and greatly improves articles. In my opinion, it's a best practice to include such explanations for specialized linked terms as long as it only takes a clause or so.

The general practice here is to let the status quo ante stand in the case of no consensus for a change, so I'll leave it as is for now. White Whirlwind 咨 21:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

My edit changing it to congressional legislation was wrong, but it was based on the article. I haven't read Marbury in many years and so I used this article to make the change. I've since noticed a few things:

1) the section Marbury_v._Madison#Judicial_review_and_striking_down_the_law doesn't discuss executive actions

2) theSupremacy Clause has been left out of the article

3) the earlier discussion about opinions of the cases prominence you can see here there is a wider range of opinions than what is represented in the article from "perhaps the most prominent" to "a suitable candidate for ... the dustbin of history".

That's all from me. Peasetort (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC) ^[1]

References

^ ttps://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Supremacy_Clause/bAhi1GbCldsC?hl=en&gbpv=1

Rather than take a position and agree or disagree with one of you, I put up this request for more eyes on the discussion. Although I have a paralegal degree and know how to perform legal research, I have a sense both of you know more about the specifics and significance of this case and have studied it far more thoroughly than I have. I have a cursory understanding of it.

I will say this, and I hope you both agree: My feeling is that this case is far more significant than just the single issue what was decided or the scope of jurisdiction relating to federal actions. It is my understanding that this case set the groundwork for judicial review of state decisions by state courts too (and possibly by federal courts). If I remember correctly, at the time it was decided, those who were involved may not have realized just how monumental that precedent would become in balancing the power of the three branches of government: Their focus was on undoing a particular power play, and Marshall invented this new principle to justify the judicial intervention. The gamble worked, and by it's success, it gave significant new powers to the Court not specified in the Constitution. It's been a while since I studied the case. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2021

This edit request to Marbury v. Madison has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under "Legacy" add that "Marbury v. Madison not only defined judicial review but also established the Judicial Branch as a separate and independent branch of government with the Supreme Court as its head." Ivanjramirez (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Please provide a source that states that it established the Judicial branch as a separate and independent branch of government. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Single Most Important Decision

"Decided in 1803, Marbury remains the single most important decision in American constitutional law."
I believe that this is an opinion and it is being stated as a fact. There are a lot of Supreme Court decisions that you could say are the single most important. I think that this would be a better statement:
"Decided in 1803, Marbury is considered by many to be one of the most important decisions in American constitutional law."
This statement is stated as an opinion, so I think it would fit better. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The cited source (a major treatise in the field) literally says this statement verbatim. Changing it to "many" would be wrong and contrary to the source. White Whirlwind 咨 20:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@White whirlwind: That doesn't mean that it isn't an opinion. For example, a writer for Vox could make a statement like "Donald Trump is the worst president in American history and he needs to be removed from office right now." While this statement is in the source, it is still an opinion and shouldn't be written as a fact on a Wikipedia article. I believe that the same should apply here. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@GamerKiller2347: If the statement on Vox was deemed sufficiently reliable and represented the consensus of academic scholarship on the subject, it would most certainly be appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. Articles are replete with those kinds of statements where universal or general acclaim is described that way—"(so-and-so) was the most important poet of the (whatever) period", and the like. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a bar against statements of opinion on Wikipedia. Rather, the core content criteria are: WP:Verifiability, WP: No Original Research, and WP:NPOV. None of those mention qualitative fact versus opinion. If you believe there ought to be such a policy, start a discussion on one of those policies' talk pages. White Whirlwind 咨 03:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@White whirlwind: I can agree with you there. I will now end this discussion. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@GamerKiller2347: Your attention to the article is very much appreciated. I see you're new here, but I hope you'll stick around. Wikipedia can never have enough editors who are intelligent and thoughtful and interested. White Whirlwind 咨 06:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not it conforms with guidelines, it's still unnecessary and detracts from the quality of the lede. It's certainly an eminently defensible and quite probably true claim, and it deserves to be in the lede, but stating it as fact and not the opinion of experts is neither necessary nor appropriate. "Widely considered to be the most important decision" conveys the same meaning without reading as opinionated. Where stating an opinion as fact is unnecessary, it should be avoided. Not because it violated WP:WHATEVER but because it doesn't fit the purpose of an encyclopedic article. The article would simply be better if it were reworded. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, "is regarded as" is a better formulation as it conforms with the source while still identifying it as opinion, not fact. I'll make that edit, feel free to revert if you hate it. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Chemerinsky is boss but I'm with Gamekiller here. It's still his opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peasetort (talk • contribs) 13:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Throwaway85: I can live with "is regarded as". This discussion has raised an interesting question about WP:Original Research. We, as editors, are choosing to interpret a statement in a prominent reliable source to be an expression of an opinion, saying it would be "inappropriate" to do otherwise. But the source is not really so. It says: "Marbury v. Madison is the single most important decision in American constitutional law." (Chemerinsky (2019), § 2.2.1, p. 39.) I can't see any way to interpret that as anything other than a statement of fact. Does this gloss constitute OR? I've been thinking about a related question lately. If many sources give a particular opinion, does it violate the OR prohibition on synthesizing sources for us to say "It is widely regarded that [opinion]"? We are doing the "widely" work ourselves. I'm not sure, myself. White Whirlwind 06:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it actually violates any wikipedia rules, it's just reads weirdly for a wikipedia article. It was the first thing that jumped out at me when I read the lede, which isn't really the goal of what we're doing here. In my mind it called too much attention to the process by which the wikipedia sausage gets made, and I think we should be trying to avoid that as much as possible.Throwaway85 (talk) 07:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Marburg v Madison suggested edit

The Court then struck down Section 13 of the Act, announcing that American courts have the power to invalidate laws that they find to violate the Constitution—a power now known as "judicial review".[9]

Suggesting to change “,announcing” to “,thereby announcing”. While the comma before announcing makes the message clear, it is by no means obvious and potentially confusing. 96.242.149.155 (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Question about the case and potentially an undisclosed explanation

Hi there. As a Wikipedia reader (besides being a contributing user) interested in the US Supreme Court rulings but not an expert in jurisprudence, there is a question that I wonder if it has an answer but that has not been given in the article and that might not be clear to another potential reader.

So, if the delivery of Marbury's commission did not invalidate the commission itself (not an essential element) why Marshall and Marbury need to force Madison to make the delivery via mandamus? I mean since the delivery did not matter wouldn't that be enough to give Marbury his position (which he got by mere act of President)? Was there another function of commission delivery? Lone Internaut (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Reading about the case on Encyclopedia Britannica, it turns out that "formality or not, without the actual piece of parchment, Marbury could not enter into the duties of office". This would explain somehow the thing. I think it should be added to the article. Lone Internaut (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It's there. "Without the commissions, the appointees were unable to assume the offices and duties to which they had been appointed." White Whirlwind 16:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh... somehow I did not pay much attention to it. I think I did not perceive it as a imposed and insurmountable condition to assume office, due to the fact that it is said before the "Decision" section, probably. Maybe also because English is not my mother tongue and something gets lost in the reading flow, I don't know.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. Great job with this article, whirlwind. Lone Internaut (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

No need to apologize. The world always needs more engaged and inquisitive readers. Also, thank you for the kind words. White Whirlwind 20:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Body missing the name of the “law congress had passed that gave…”

When we get here: “Examining the section of the law Congress had passed that gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction over types of cases like Marbury's, the Court found that it had expanded the definition of its jurisdiction beyond what was originally set forth in the U.S. Constitution.[8] The Court then struck down that section of the law,…” the body of the article article hasn’t stated the name of the name of a law, nor linked to it.

Rough suggestion: Examining Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the law Congress had passed that gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction over types of cases like Marbury's, the Court found that it had expanded the definition of its jurisdiction beyond what was originally set forth in the U.S. Constitution… 168.91.236.137 (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe also “…the law Congress passed that had given the Supreme Court…” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.91.236.137 (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The body is not missing the name of the law. It's in the "The Supreme Court's jurisdiction" section. White Whirlwind 21:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it clear to the reader that John Marshall was both the Secretary of State AND the Justice?

I wfy'ed the first reference to his name, but left the second ... this [3] diff shows removal of the second by User:White_whirlwind ... I agree with that removal, (our practice is usually to only link the first ref) but wonder if somewhere in the first or second para it should be made clear they are in fact the same person. Thoughts? Maybe I'm the only confused person. I was thinking of inserting "(former Secretary of State)" or similar but could not come up with a construction I liked. ++Lar: t/c 15:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I came here specifically to make the same suggestion for the same reason. (I'm familiar with Marbury v. Madison and I, too, was confused by the current wording.) The cleanest and most effective edit would be to change the first line of the third graf (which currently reads "In an opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Court held firstly that...") to: "In an opinion written by John Marshall, the former Secretary of State who by then had been appointed Chief Justice of the United States, the Court held firstly that..." Neither "John Marshall" not "Secretary of State" would need internal Wiki links, as both would be second-reference; however "Chief Justice of the United States" would require an internal Wiki link. [Note: Technically, Marshall would not require the reiteration of his first name in this proposed revision, as this would be a second-reference mention; however given the tumble of so many names in such a short space, I think reiterating "John" would make it extra clear to readers that this was the same person.]

Bruce Kluger (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Tried to address these concerns. See the article and let me know if it's improved. White Whirlwind 21:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, User:White_whirlwind]. Thank you for reaching out. No, unfortunately, whatever changes were made do not address the inherent problem. The dual role of John Marshall remains unclear and confusing. I recommend that you review my proposed fix, which I maintain is the cleanest solution to an admittedly confusing element of the story. Without that fix (or something approximating it), the Wikipedia article reads as if it was carelessly written and/or edited. Bruce Kluger (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure your suggestion is any clearer. Yours makes it seem like Marshall was Secretary of State and then Chief Justice, rather than both simultaneously. (Marshall was already Chief Justice when he sealed the commissions, which makes your "had by then been appointed" somewhat misleading.) But in my opinion, the specifics of Marshall's dual role are not important for the purposes of the lead, so I'll change the wording to your suggestion and leave it at that. White Whirlwind 06:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I see your point. But the overlap in the two jobs was just four weeks; and the Marshall’s own Wiki entry does describe the jobs as sequential rather than overlapping (i.e., “Prior to joining the Court, Marshall briefly served as both the U.S. Secretary of State…” etc.) But, yeah, better to be slightly askew than confusing. Thanks so much for making the change. Bruce Kluger (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

[1] See Treanor, William, "Judicial Review Before Marbury," 58 Stanford Law Review 455, 458 (2005).

[2] McBride, Alex (December 2006). "The Supreme Court ,The Court and Democracy, Landmark Cases, Marbury v. Madison (1803)". Thirteen/WNET New York. Retrieved 22 September 2017.

[FOOTNOTEChemerinsky2019§_2.2.2,_p._47-3] Chemerinsky (2019), § 2.2.2, p. 47.

[4] ttps://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Supremacy_Clause/bAhi1GbCldsC?hl=en&gbpv=1

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]

Table

Background

Judicial review

Another Question-Please answer!

Jackson quote

Original Jurisdiction

SupremacyClaus's proposed additions

Words have no underlying meaning? Meanings of words cannot be determined?

The "duty to say what the law is"

Why couldn't Marbury refile?

Marburry vs. Madison

clearer language please

GA on hold

Recent citation edits

How can one cite to something that wasn't?

Reaction at the time?

GA on hold (Sweeps)

The use of The Term Repulican Party for democratic-repulican party

The issue of Federalism

Incorrect info in lead

Editing the Opening Introduction (May 2006 - March 2009)

Criticisms

Logical problem?

New Book on the Subject

There must be some discussion out there about the legal quality of the Marbury v Madison decision

Edit request on 4 April 2012

Why was the paragraph on the Obama statement added at all?

Consistency with Judicial review in the United States

International cosequences

Incorrect lead needs changing by a registered user

Scalia says Marbury v. Madison was overruled

Question

Marbury redirect

Status of the judicial power before Marbury section is too long

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2014

Modern Arguments Added and Edit Removed

Exceptions clause

So what happened?

Midnight Judges

External links modified

External links modified

Proposed added paragraph

Marbury vs Madison

Rework incoming

Further Reading revert

Add to Further Reading -- Trachtman

GA Review

Review

Notes

Discussion

Second Further Reading Revert -- Tushnet

Marbury Revisionism

Dispute re scope of judicial review in LEDE

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2021

Single Most Important Decision

Marburg v Madison suggested edit

Question about the case and potentially an undisclosed explanation

Body missing the name of the “law congress had passed that gave…”

Is it clear to the reader that John Marshall was both the Secretary of State AND the Justice?