Imagine the possibilities that can arise if people actually found out what they passionately enjoy doing, and not be limited by the financial aspects... you know that pesky 'adulting'... Can you believe we follow a broken system because others said it is needed to be that way... lol Or because it's been done for this long... sad days are coming faster and faster; when many more will lose their ways of living the way they did... I'm for people to have a safe and comfortable home, people being more self-reliant in their food stuff by planting freely food forests everywhere... it's crazy we still have to pay crazy high prices for the basic utilizes... when it can be just at: maintenance fees, material costs (which they would get discounts on), and donation based to support those that bring more streamline services... plus, this retirement plan is crap... people think they will have any money left after they break wall street... lol, What a trip... how about people creating NFTs so others can support their mentors/ people that brought them Blissful experiences... easy fix... Education wouldn't be this broken system but from the mindset of; what brings one interest (passionate people sharing 'Show and Tell') Shadowing professionals and having people record for those that can't be live, there... everything is top quality... Easy fix for this reality...
i'm in law school and while i generally understood this case, i didn't understand the significance. this video helped me fully understand it. thank you!!!
I have a quiz with this tomorrow, but for APUSH!! This video is a miracle 0-0 Thanks for carrying me through APWH!! I was bound to fail the exam but watching your reviews and livestreams helped me pass with last minute study
Yeah, but this is a new subject for my channel. I’ve got to earn my space like anyone else. We’ll get there. In the meantime, let any AP Gov-ers know that the videos are there for them…
So because Justice Marshall found a law unconstitutional due to it colliding with Article III, therefore putting it out of their original jurisdiction, and declared it as so, despite it being part of a law once passed by Congress. Marshall said it was unconstitutional despite no power being given to the Supreme Court to do so. But no one really came to argue with that so Chief Justice Marshall pretty much gave the power of judicial review to the Court based on what the federalists were arguing in the Federalist Papers on the idea of checks and balances, and more specifically Federalist 51 and 78. And no one has really came to argue against the power (and they really can't do that either because that was the idea the federalists had for the judicial branch in Federalist 78 and by extension Federalist 51). I think I got it?
Question: Was the ruling because Marbury's case shouldn't have technically fallen under original jurisdiction and therefore Marshall couldn't issue a writ of mandamus? Or did Marshall just rule that the writs of mandamus portion of the Judiciary Act of 1802 was unconstitutional and get rid of it?
Both. According to the Court's interruption of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the SC would have original jurisdiction for Marbury's case, but they ruled the Act to be unconstitutional. Therefore, the SC didn't have original jurisdiction and Marbury was in the wrong court. The ruling also said that section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789; which granted the Supreme Court the ability to issue writs of mandamus, was unconstitutional.
I'm no AP Gov Major, I'm just a curious American, but isn't it unconstitutional for a branch to empower themselves? wouldn't Potus or Congress be required to allow the Supreme Justice's the ability to interpret the constitution?
Did the Court also rule as it did, and not order the writ because Madison would have ignored it and they would have looked foolish? Or is it simply not provided for in the text of Article Three in which Section 2 gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction when ambassadors, public officials, or the states are a party in the case, leaving the Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction in all other areas to which the federal judiciary's jurisdiction extends. Could Marshall have reasonably ordered Madison to deliver the Writ of Mandamus?
this is one of the most important supreme court cases? Who was wronged? Or who would have been wronged if it went the other way? Seems like a bunch of boring technicalities that couldn't have made any difference in anyone's life besides William Marbury's.
I'm still a legal novice, but I'm learning. What this case established was Judicial Review. Essentially the SC can declare any law that goes against the constitution as null and void.
Hey, not Heimler, but a junior Political Science major. John Marshall (Supreme Court Chief Justice in this case) was a federalist appointed by John Adams (also a federalist) before Thomas Jefferson (a democratic-republican) took office. By ruling this way in Marbury v. Madison and establishing judicial review, it gave more power to the federal government, which is what federalists were for, whereas anti-federalists wanted the majority of power to be reserved for the states. The power of judicial review gives a MASSIVE amount of power to the national government through the Supreme Court, therefore supporting federalist ideals!
Just wish he spoke faster. Don't understand why it's such a landmark case. Bunch of gobbledygook to this CJ student. God bless all of you who understand this. Choosing good ole' Miranda v. Arizona for assignment.
![Marbury v. Madison, EXPLAINED [AP Gov Required Cases]](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
