法律教育網

法律英語

2019瑞達法考客觀題學習包

考試內容 報名條件 報名時間 報名方法

成績查詢 考試時間 分 數 線 授予資格

您的位置:法律教育網 > 法律英語 > 經典案例 > 正文

Typical Case

2016-02-15 11:43  來源:   糾錯

Marbury v. Madison Marbury v. Madison (1803) was the first important case before Marshall's Court. In that case, the Supreme Court invalidated a provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 on the grounds that it violated the Constitution by attempting to expand the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Marbury was the first and only case in which the Marshall Court ruled an act of Congress unconstitutional, and thereby reinforced the doctrine of judicial review. Thus, although the Court indicated that the Jefferson administration was violating another law, the Court said it could not do anything about it due to its own lack of jurisdiction. President Thomas Jefferson took the position that the Court could not give him a mandamus (i.e. an order) even if the Court had jurisdiction:

“ In the case of Marbury and Madison, the federal judges declared that commissions, signed and sealed by the President, were valid, although not delivered. I deemed delivery essential to complete a deed, which, as long as it remains in the hands of the party, is as yet no deed, it is in posse only, but not in esse, and I withheld delivery of the commissions. They cannot issue a mandamus to the President or legislature, or to any of their officers.”

More generally, Jefferson lamented that allowing the Constitution to mean whatever the Court says it means would make the Constitution “a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

Because Marbury v. Madison decided that a jurisdictional statute passed by Congress was unconstitutional, that was technically a victory for the Jefferson administration (so it could not easily complain) Ironically what was unconstitutional was Congress' granting a certain power to the Supreme Court itself. The case allowed Marshall to proclaim the doctrine of judicial review, which reserves to the Supreme Court final authority to judge whether or not actions of the president or of the congress are within the powers granted to them by the Constitution. The Constitution itself is the supreme law, and when the Court believes that a specific law or action is in violation of it, the Court must uphold the Constitution and set aside that other law or action, assuming that a party hasstanding to properly invoke the Court's jurisdiction. Chief Justice Marshall famously put the matter this way:

“ 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. ”

The Constitution does not explicitly give judicial review to the Court, and Jefferson was very angry with Marshall's position, for he wanted the President to decide whether his acts were constitutional or not. Historians mostly agree that the framers of the Constitution did plan for the Supreme Court to have some sort of judicial review; what Marshall did was make operational their goals.[49] Judicial review was not new and Marshall himself mentioned it in the Virginia ratifying convention of 1788. Marshall's opinion expressed and fixed in the American tradition and legal system a more basic theory—government under law. That is, judicial review means a government in which no person (not even the President) and no institution (not even Congress or the Supreme Court itself), nor even a majority of voters, may freely work their will in violation of the written Constitution. Marshall himself never declared another law of Congress or act of a president unconstitutional. Marshall, during “Marbury v. Madison” on the constitution:

“Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.”

責任編輯:儀

特別推薦

地圖
法律教育網官方微信

法律教育網微信公眾號向您推薦考試資訊、輔導資料、考試教材、歷年真題、法律常識、法律法規等資訊,只有你想不到,沒有我們做不到!詳情>>

1、凡本網注明“來源:法律教育網”的所有作品,版權均屬法律教育網所有,未經本網授權不得轉載、鏈接、轉貼或以其他方式使用;已經本網授權的,應在授權范圍內使用,且必須注明“來源:法律教育網”。違反上述聲明者,本網將追究其法律責任。

2、本網部分資料為網上搜集轉載,均盡力標明作者和出處。對于本網刊載作品涉及版權等問題的,請作者與本網站聯系,本網站核實確認后會盡快予以處理。

本網轉載之作品,并不意味著認同該作品的觀點或真實性。如其他媒體、網站或個人轉載使用,請與著作權人聯系,并自負法律責任。

3、本網站歡迎積極投稿

丹东| 邵阳| 甘南| 乐山| 南阳| 黄冈| 白山| 海安| 铜陵| 中山| 霍邱| 茂名| 明港| 昌都| 和田| 惠东| 兴化| 芜湖| 台州| 邹平| 桂林| 张掖| 东阳| 温州| 日喀则| 泗阳| 偃师| 临汾| 高雄| 蓬莱| 芜湖| 廊坊| 湖北武汉| 岳阳| 沛县| 益阳| 图木舒克| 湖北武汉| 兴安盟| 甘南| 钦州| 宿州| 长葛| 项城| 桐城| 金华| 青州| 宁夏银川| 阜阳| 金坛| 澄迈| 内江| 襄阳| 四川成都| 云浮| 海拉尔| 广汉| 潍坊| 吐鲁番| 白山| 葫芦岛| 宁德| 新沂| 任丘| 怀化| 许昌| 喀什| 许昌| 长兴| 库尔勒| 嘉善| 柳州| 甘孜| 永新| 扬州| 余姚| 锡林郭勒| 南京| 黔西南| 开封| 湖州| 菏泽| 保定| 铜川| 揭阳| 塔城| 阿坝| 肥城| 佳木斯| 丽水| 海拉尔| 高密| 和田| 随州| 铁岭| 高雄| 克拉玛依| 潮州| 启东| 丽江| 象山| 盘锦| 金华| 邹城| 咸阳| 汉川| 嘉善| 海门| 娄底| 新疆乌鲁木齐| 惠东| 葫芦岛| 阿勒泰| 韶关| 广汉| 溧阳| 包头| 乳山| 琼海| 慈溪| 灵宝| 玉环| 大连| 杞县| 和县| 云南昆明| 沛县| 江苏苏州| 绵阳| 宜宾| 雄安新区| 临沂| 馆陶| 临沧| 南平| 澳门澳门| 瑞安| 河源| 鹰潭| 昆山| 怀化| 哈密| 博罗| 长治| 吉安| 池州| 上饶| 启东| 承德| 乌兰察布| 昭通| 南京| 安顺| 牡丹江| 乳山| 湛江| 永州| 慈溪| 兴化| 深圳| 天水| 海宁| 大兴安岭| 金昌| 绵阳| 台中| 安顺| 黄南| 果洛| 兴安盟| 丹阳| 抚顺| 济源| 商洛| 博罗| 大理| 单县| 垦利| 潮州| 襄阳| 娄底| 兴安盟| 松原| 大理| 鸡西| 吉林长春| 漯河| 桂林| 那曲| 晋城| 包头| 安吉| 正定| 海南海口| 屯昌| 铜陵| 新疆乌鲁木齐| 台湾台湾| 湘潭| 吉林| 山南| 德州| 汕头| 石河子| 海北| 台北| 铁岭| 鄢陵| 垦利| 莆田| 永新| 六盘水| 张家口| 桐城| 德州| 黔南| 呼伦贝尔| 周口| 凉山| 云南昆明| 惠州| 邳州| 抚顺| 儋州| 东台| 芜湖| 鸡西| 平凉| 四川成都| 绵阳| 贺州| 贺州| 孝感| 云南昆明| 宁国| 阿拉善盟| 保定| 象山| 威海| 霍邱| 偃师| 苍南| 海南海口| 毕节| 阳春| 唐山| 鹤岗| 信阳| 茂名| 赣州| 许昌| 内蒙古呼和浩特| 张掖| 昭通| 镇江| 邵阳| 韶关| 临沂| 铜陵| 宿州| 锡林郭勒| 铜仁| 慈溪| 葫芦岛| 汉中| 陵水| 琼海| 沛县| 浙江杭州| 盘锦| 三明| 白城| 桐乡| 芜湖| 阿克苏| 定州| 许昌| 临海| 金昌| 三亚| 新乡| 靖江| 深圳| 阿拉尔| 大同| 广安| 扬州| 惠东| 厦门| 金坛| 玉林| 龙口| 姜堰| 泰州| 仙桃| 文昌| 怒江| 台山| 赣州| 台北|