Marbury vs Madison
Storyboard Text
- The story of Marbury vs. Madison starts off in 1802, when John Adams was about to leave office, he appointed a bunch of his Federalist judges to the district of Columbia courts. Which were then approved by the Senate and signed by the president, but they didnt have their commison papers. Without the commisons the judges couldnt start there job because Thomas Jefferson wouldnt send them over. He had secretary James madison keep them.
- Hey! Send over our commision papers so we can start our job! This is unfair.
- I will not deliver them because Adams didnt deliver them before he left office.
- One of the jobless judges, William Marbury wanted the court to issue a writ of mandamous, basically he wanted James Madison to show why he couldnt get his commison.
- I'm William Marbury and I deserve to have my job! Im going to take this up with the Surpreme Court to see if I can fix this.
- John Marshall, an American Politician, and Lawyer took the case because he saw it as an opportunity to establish some important legal precedents. Marshall knew that if the court gave Marbury a writ of Mandamus, the Jefferson administration would just ignore it. But if the court denied the writ it might appear that the justices had acted out of fear.
- I want to make a decion that is both fair to the Jeffersonians and that wont go aganist court oder.
- This is the best decion because we are following the guidence of what the rule of law is.
- Marshall ruled that Acts of congress can be reviewed and overturned if the court deems them to be unconstituitonal. He brought up the section of the Judiciary act of 1789 that gave the Supreme Court the Power to make the writ of mandamus. This was still able to work with the Court Order. A quote from Marshall that is now carved on the Supreme Court Wall states that, "It is emphatically that province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is." In other words any laws that are trying to be passed have to be accepted by the Constiution, The Surpreme Law of the land.
- I found that the Act is unconstitutional because it over extended what the Surpreme Courts role was, that was granted by the Constitution.
- Now, the Surpreme court will run as an equal branch with the congress. The court has become the voice of the Constitution, the final authority on what the document really meant. With striking down that law it relinguished its power and defined itself as equal to and indepent of congress.
- In current day court readings the Constitution is still used in Judical review. For example if congress passes a law that comes under judical review it will need to fall under the interpretation of the constitution.
Over 30 Million Storyboards Created