English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-02-08 14:08:46 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities History

6 answers

actually marbury won the case, if u belive the history books.

2007-02-08 14:14:22 · answer #1 · answered by who cares 1 · 0 0

Marbury v. Madison was a fairly involved Supreme Court case. There are two aspects of it, immediate and long term. In the short term William Marbury, appointed to be a D.C. judge, failed to have his writ or order delivered. The Supreme Court under William Marshall ruled on a techincality that the writ could not be delivered. Marbury was one of many "midnight justices," whom Federalist President John Adams had appointed at the very end of his term in office, before the Democrat-Republican Thomas Jefferson succeeded him. So the technical result was a victory for Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison. He was able to keep the Federalist from being a D.C. judge.

However, much more important was that Marbury v. Madison gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. It could strike down laws of Congress as unconstitutional. This made the Supreme Court powerful, and most of its rulings have favored big government. Thomas Jefferson disliked the judiciary and big government, so in the larger scheme of things the ruling was a defeat for Jefferson and Madison.

2007-02-08 14:54:13 · answer #2 · answered by Rev. Dr. Glen 3 · 1 0

Now for an answer from a historian.


There was no winner. John Marshall decided to NOT rule on it since the basis for the lawsuit, (The Judiciary Act of 1801) had an unconstitutional article in it that allowed an individual to take cases regarding writs of mandamus directly to the Supreme Court without going through lower appeals courts. However the Constitution itself clearly states that the Supreme Court can NEVER be the court of original jurisdiction--it is ONLY an appeals court. Therefore Marshall never ruled on the case since there could not be any case. Thus was born judicial review.


And there you have the right answer. Ta-Da!

2007-02-08 14:44:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

I agree with Matt. In order to understand just how divisive the decision was, it's really necessary to read the dissenting as well as the Court's decision. Same goes with ANY other case you may be given to take a look at. Often, more often than not actually, what was once the dissent becomes the law of the land.

2016-05-23 23:33:24 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Marbury.

2007-02-08 14:17:15 · answer #5 · answered by Cister 7 · 1 0

I won!!!!!!!!!!! ;0)

2016-11-02 14:29:38 · answer #6 · answered by ? 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers