2007-06-25 04:41:12 · 2 answers · asked by Grace 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review of Federal statutes by the Supreme Court of the United States under Article Three of the United States Constitution.
See link for more.
2007-06-25 04:49:04 · answer #1 · answered by jargent100 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Marbury Vs Madison Definition
2016-12-11 14:22:00 · answer #2 · answered by spadafora 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Marbury V Madison Definition
2016-09-30 09:09:28 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I guess this should be submitted..al a Kingsbury..so I am unworthy..lol
actually Marbury vs Madison came as a result of Marbury's Judicial Appointment by Adams wasn't processed before
the Jefferson Adm. took over as President..
Jefferson ordered Madison to cancel the appointment
Marbury took his case to the Supreme Court ...where he lost.
The impact of the case was the Court defining itself as the bottom line on Judicial Review..and outlined which type of cases where subject to it's purview.
the exact law.."In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned [within the judicial power of the United States], the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." wickipedia
2007-06-25 04:52:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Marbury v. Madison was one of the defining cases of the U.S. Supreme Court. Marbury was a man who was appointed immediately before Madison took office. Madison replaced him with one of his own appointees when he took office, and Marbury sued, claiming he could not be removed under the terms of the Constitution. Madison claimed that as president, he had the right to interpret the Constitution. The Supreme Court found that the executive branch had no such rights--interpretation of the Constitution was strictly reserved for the Supreme Court, and the rights of one branch of government could not be usurped by either of the others. Now if only Bush would follow it. . .
2007-06-25 08:03:30 · answer #5 · answered by cross-stitch kelly 7 · 9⤊ 3⤋
It changed the role of the Supreme Court.
2007-06-25 04:43:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋