marbury

					Examples


1. Marbury v. Madison
         Marbury v. Madison


Facts:




                               Question:
                          What are the facts of
                              this case?
Facts of Case
                0
                0
                0
                 Marbury v. Madison


Facts:

  -- Federalists are in retreat; they have just lost to Jefferson
  -- They pack the courts with federalists on the way out the
  door. They appoint all sorts of new judges to the bench.
  -- But, some commissions don’t get delivered.
  -- Marbury never received his commission even though he
  was confirmed to be a judge
  -- He sues to get his commission
         Marbury v. Madison


Issue:




                              Question:
                         What is the issue in
                            the case?
Issue in Case?
                 0
                 0
                 0
                  Marbury v. Madison


Issue:

  -- The Congress had a law on the books that allowed the
  Supreme Court to grant a Writ of “Mandamus.”
  (explain what a Mandamus is. Explain equitable relief.
  Explain the use of the word “Writ”)
  -- But there is a problem with the Court issuing a
  mandamus
              Question:
         What is the problem?
Problem?
           0
           0
           0
                 Marbury v. Madison


Issue:

  -- The problem is that, in order to get one of these things,
  you first need to have a trial. The Supreme Court is not a
  trial court, it is an appellate Court.
                                              Question:*
                 Marbury v. Madison should Marshall go
                                  How
                                          about deciding the
                                        issue? How should he
Issue:                                 approach it as a Judge?

  -- The problem is that, in order to get one of these things,
               Consider a trial. The Supreme Court is not a
  you first need to have the Options:
  trial court, it is an appellate Court.
1. Great Traditions?
2. Follow precedent?
3. Follow original intent of the constitution?
4. Defer to the power center?
5. Go with what is most popular
6. Policy Engineering?
                  Marbury v. Madison


Marshall’s Approach

   -- He is going to reason his way to the result using “iron
   clad” logic (or at least trying to). No Maxim or Platitude
   -- Let’s examine Hercules’ decision
              Hercules and the Syllogism



                                          Starting point
1. The Constitution is supreme law;
                                               Key premise!
2. It is more important than a mere statute;

3. Courts are asked to interpret laws;     Functional Logic

4. We can’t do this if we ignore the supreme law.
                                               True by Logic
5. Therefore, we are the ones who interpret the Constitution.

                                   Tremendous Conclusion
If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is
void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts,
and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though
it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was
a law?
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule
to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret
that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must
decide on the operation of each.
So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law
and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the
court must either decide that case conformably to the law,
disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the
constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine
which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of
the very essence of judicial duty.
It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the
constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or,
that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary
act. ..


Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The
constitution is either a superior, paramount law,
unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with
ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable
when the legislature shall please to alter it.

       Question:
Is the decision correct?
Everyone
 Votes!
           1.   Yes, he is.     0
           2.   No, he is not   0
Issue in Case?
                 0
                 0
                 0
It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the
constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or,
that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary
act. ..


Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The
constitution is either a superior, paramount law,
unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with
ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable
when the legislature shall please to alter it.

                                        Question:
                               How is what Marshall does in
                               this case different from what
                               Coke did in Bonham’s case?
Issue in Case?
                 0
                 0
                 0

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:36
posted:1/22/2011
language:English
pages:18