Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Read a random definition: hominatio

A quick definition of Marbury v. Madison (1803):

Marbury v. Madison (1803) was a court case that gave the Supreme Court the power to decide if laws made by the government are allowed by the Constitution. Before Thomas Jefferson became President, John Adams appointed William Marbury as a justice of the peace. But Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison, didn't give Marbury the job. Marbury went to the Supreme Court to ask for his job, but the Court said they couldn't give it to him. However, the Court also said that they could decide if laws made by the government were okay or not. This made the Supreme Court very important because they could now say if the government was following the rules of the Constitution or not.

A more thorough explanation:

Marbury v. Madison (1803) was a case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was an important case because it established the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review. This means that the Supreme Court has the authority to review legislative or executive acts and find them unconstitutional.

Here's an example: After President John Adams lost the 1800 election, but before he left office, he appointed Marbury as a justice of the peace and signed the commission. Soon thereafter, Thomas Jefferson became President of the United States and refused to allow Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury. Marbury sued Madison in the Supreme Court to get his commission via a writ of mandamus.

Under Justice John Marshall, the Court specifically held that the provision in the 1789 Act granting the Supreme Court the power to issue a writ of mandamus was unconstitutional. This means that the Supreme Court cannot force the government to do something if it goes against the Constitution.

Marbury v. Madison limited federal court’s jurisdiction, but it cemented the Court’s status as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. This means that the Supreme Court has the final say on what the Constitution means and how it should be applied.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) | Margin

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
i've been away for a while what were the most recent waves? any this week?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.