Loans | Free Advertising | Free Myspace Layouts | Personal Loans | Loans
A 200-year-old court ruling truly made us what we are [Archive] - FreeConservatives

PDA

View Full Version : A 200-year-old court ruling truly made us what we are


oracle
03-09-2003, 08:20 PM
A 200-year-old court ruling truly made us what we are (http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/bal-md.kane09mar09,0,6381047.column?coll=bal%2Dhome%2D columnists)

Gregory Kane

Originally published Mar 9, 2003

THE YEAR 2003 marks the 200th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Marbury vs. Madison. So let's whoop it up and celebrate.

What's that? What's Marbury vs. Madison, and why should we care? If Samuel L. Banks, my City College history teacher, were around, he'd simply give us all a look of equal parts bewilderment and amusement, and gently chide, "But you should know this."

Some 27 years ago, we celebrated the Bicentennial, whooping up the 200th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The festivities were considerably more muted 11 years later, when we observed the 200th anniversary of the Constitutional Convention.

The 200th anniversary of Marbury vs. Madison causes no similar devotion, although it should. What happened in 1776 didn't define us as a nation. What happened during the 1787 constitutional debates in Philadelphia defined us only somewhat.

It's what happened on Feb. 24, 1803 -- when the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Marbury vs. Madison -- that established judicial review as a fundamental principle in American government.

For 200 years, the Supreme Court has examined laws and lower court decisions to see if they pass constitutional muster. (One quote from Chief Justice John Marshall sums it up more succinctly: "A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.") While Marbury vs. Madison might not ring a bell, its effect may be discerned from other Supreme Court decisions more famous -- or infamous, depending on where you camp out on the political spectrum.

...


Click here to read more (http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/bal-md.kane09mar09,0,6381047.column?coll=bal%2Dhome%2D columnists)

MaximumSam
03-09-2003, 08:26 PM
Oh no...where's Carl?

Venus
03-10-2003, 04:10 AM
Sheesh, Osammie, that was exactly my first thought, too.

Warlady
03-10-2003, 04:18 AM
What's Marbury vs. Madison?

Venus
03-10-2003, 04:39 AM
Marbury v. Madison affirmed the process of judicial review over Congressional acts. The Court ruled that Congress didn't have the right to expand judiciary powers, in reference to the Judiciary Act Congress passed several years beforehand. The case itself was about an appointment to the judiciary that got stalled by an incoming administration (see, this has been going on for years, in one format or another). The appointee-in-waiting, Marbury, tried to get the appointment advanced through a writ process not authorized by the U.S. Constitution.

This was the first case in which the Court nullified an act of Congress on the basis of constitutionality. The vote was unanimous, IIRC.

Warlady
03-10-2003, 04:41 AM
Someone needs to tell the Democrats in the Senate. Thanks for educating me. This is your forté, not mine.

DesertFox
03-10-2003, 10:33 AM
Marbury also shows the proper use of judicial review. Latter-day judicial activism has prostituted it out of all recognition.

ThomasMore
05-26-2003, 12:13 AM
HERE is a brief lay summary of Marbury v. Madison (http://www.jmu.edu/madison/marbury/background.htm)