Supreme Court Stories: Marbury v. Madison 

Andrew Cox I swear I thought the same thing lol

Yeah! What the hell was that

hahah!

She emotionally unstable. Typical woman behavior. Unstable.

timestamp?

hahahah same

but it's a beautiful thing no?

@@rafaelgradilla5102 its not

@@ilfado I felt that

cuz its sick

Im glad my US/PR Constitutional Law professor explained the case as detailed and dramatically as he did. It made it one of my favorite cases ever.

The most important for the democracy!

i got better sources special for cops and rights and court . if your a cop this will get you fired . lol. lose in court win anything you enforce on people. lol.

Did a better job than my textbook

It was supposed to. It is fiction. This is not what happened.

Why you think that?

Forum and Brim I'm not reading that bro. Give me the short story.

Marbury v. Madison was a setup in 1803. It was never about giving William Marbury a Judgeship. John Adams and his then Secretary of State John Marshall, and James Marshall (John's brother), set the whole thing up with other founding fathers to seize Article I Section 1 authority for the judiciary (judicial review). In other words, the three purposely did not deliver the commission to Marbury and others so when Thomas Jefferson arrived on his first day of work, he would refuse to deliver him so that they could take him to court-knowing that Marbury would lose (which is the point of the article)-so that they could strike down the Judiciary Act of 1789. In my opinion, it goes further back than that. Jefferson said that, to his "mortification," when he joined George Washington's cabinet he discovered they were all in favor of "kingly" government. In other words, they wanted a strong central government. We're told that judicial review was an oversight and that's why it's not in the constitution. Furthermore, the court and others quote Alexander Hamilton's essay, Federalist 78, stating that it supports Chief Justice John Marshall's usurpation of judicial review. It does, but there was a reason Hamilton wrote it anonymously and did not show Madison or John Jay before he had it published in two NY newspapers. More to the point, it was a lie. Madison wrote Jefferson 8 months before Hamilton published Federalist 78 (a month after they finished drafting the constitution). He told Jefferson that the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention specifically discussed giving the judiciary judicial review, but the majority decided against it. Their reason was that if they wanted to include the supreme court in the legislative process they would have included them in on the front end of the legislative process before a bill became law. His reasoning was that to give the supreme court a check on the legislature afterwards made not sense because the point was to prevent injurious laws before their signed into law and not after when a person might not be able to fight it all the way to the supreme court. This is a bold faced lie that is completely covered up by politicians, law professors, lawyers and the like. It's why we're living with Citizens United v. FEC. Since judicial review is illegal, all congress needs to do is ignore the opinion in that case. Even the Attorney General of the United States in 1986 invited the nation to ignore the supreme court when it tried to use judicial review. The court is supposed to merely be the final court of law, they are not supposed to legislate from the bench by interpreting the constitution when it becomes ambiguous. They're appointed for life, so our founders wanted to leave all legislative matters to the congress (hence the first sentence of Art. I § 1). If people didn't like what the congress decided, they could be voted out of office. By allowing the federal government to steal judicial review for the legislature, they could make decisions like Citizens United and congress could play the blame game. In other words, Congress passed the 2002 campaign finance reform act to make it look like they were trying to rein in spending in elections just so the supreme court could step in and strike it down. It's convenient because it allows congress people to have single digit approval ratings while still being elected 90-95% of the time. It has other ramifications too which has led to more of the same (a lack of accountability at the federal level).

Forum and Brim 0.o Jeez dude, I only watched this video for a history assignment in school... I only understood like 60% of what you said m8...

u still posting m8

right?lol I'm watching for my public administration class.haha

funny cause remember when your a cop tickets are null and void .. haha .. against human rights .. right tot travel instead of drive . long as nobody gets hurt .. this case mixed into any case you win plus other things ... lots of crazy people become cops . personally disorders . i'd get fired sue be a good cop . fallow the law not legal . become sheriff and work with legislators to block state federal laws .. one law due process , right to face your accuser . criminal justice is criminal . edits lie most the time and you never hit a court room while serious criminals walk or get court and due process decent people victims get wards and drugs torture . end messed up . i might run for governor ... once you interfere or touch somebody you are liable . people have the right but agents don't have the right to interfere or control . lol. bad laws .. becarfull . specially if people ask is that a order or sure let me take your order . is that another order ? lol. soon you will be taking innocent set up people to wards and they get destroyed . drugged overdosed maybe hooked health problems ptsd . i could never be a cop . lol. they know they break the law cops feds fbi don't care ... horrible world by admitting they show this . lol.

@@cowpoke02 Oh now I get it. You've made everything so clear.

It is dramatic.

ha thats me right now XD

Mr. Wyatt i didn't do so good either lol

Hi Hollenhund

In 1783 he married Marie Ambler, who bore him 10 children.

+Grace Renay From my understanding this gave the Court's the authority to interpret the laws, decided what is constitutional, and to nullify actions that are declared unconstitutional. This made the judiciary system just as powerful as the executive and legislative branch, who jobs are to make laws.

+Jason Blood thanks so much I understand now

The Supreme Court offers opinions. They cannot make laws. Only Congress can do that.