What was one effect of the supreme court decision in marybury v. Madison?

Answer 1

It gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review and judge (check) the other two branches using the Constitution. Marybury was not a controversal case at the time. The decision did not send shock waves throughout the nation. Had it been a highly sensitive case such as the Dred Scott Decision, we may have had a different outcome and where it questioned whether the Supreme Court had the right to determine the executive branch was acting illegally by judicial review.

Answer 2

Throughout U.S. history, the Supreme Court has been called upon to interpret the Constitution, broadly speaking, in one or two possible ways: 1. a "strict construction" of national law, which holds that the principal governmental authority remains with the states and that the federal government should have only secondary authority and 2. a less strict, more federalist position, which asserts that the Constitution, through a broad interpretation of its phrasing, allows for implied, more expansive powers in the central government. The latter view was especially dominant from 1801 to 1835, the early years of the Court's history, when the American jurist John Marshall presided as fourth chief justice.

In the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), involving a contested appointment by the predecessor of Secretary of State James Madison, the Court held that an act of Congress in conflict with the Constitution was void and that is was the function of the Court to determine whether such conflict exists. This important, precedent-setting power of judicial review was not exercised again to hold an act of Congress unconstitutional until the historic Dred Scott case of 1857; the power to invalidate congressional acts has been used sparingly ever since. On the other hand, the Court has frequently invalidated state legislation, exercising a power that has been very important in maintaining the federal system of government.

Simply, its role in American life was twofold: establishing and maintaining a working principle of judicial review and defining the powers of not just the Supreme Court, but all courts in the jurisprudence of the United States.

Case Citation:

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)

Answer 3

William Marbury was appointed Justice of the peace in D.C. by Adams but didn't receive his commission (Task/Job)

So he went to the Supreme Court and petitioned (Requested or asked) to compel, (Pressure/Force) the NEW Secretary of State (James Madison) to give him his commission.

This caused two questions to come up:

#1 Can a federal judge sue for his appointment to the court?

Which means in today's terms: Hey, is Marbury even allowed to sue the Court,

and force them to make Madison give him his commission?

#2 Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the delivery of the commissions?

Even if the Supreme Court told Madison to give Marbury what was his, the Court could do NOTHING to force him, that isn't in their power to do, so Madison could just say "No," and then the entire court would then look weak as they could do again, NOTHING about it. Thus possibly making more people disobey whatever the Court has to say.

(which is why the executive branch exists to enforce the laws.)

These might seem like easy answer questions, but remember, Madison and Jefferson were in huge favor of a very weak Supreme Court. They didn't want to give Marbury this job as he was a federalist,

(a person who is a promoter of a system of government in which several states unite under a central authority.)

While Madison and Jefferson were republicans,

(one who opposes the unrestrained rule of the people, but also opposes the unrestrained rule of the aristocracy (kings, leading families, the rich, scholars, or any other elites).

So the Marshall decided to use a creative way to get out of this problem without making it look like he was choosing sides. He realized that these entire thing was unconstitutional, thus making the whole argument null and void, (Meaningless and no longer up to debate.)

Sorry this is long. BTW I took this info from a video you should go check out, I just added in some more explainations and interpretations of words from the Wiki.

Look up "Case 5: Marbury v Madison AP GoPo" and that should be the video right there.

Answer 4

that marbury he dont like madison