Talk:Marbury v. Madison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Marbury v. Madison was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Law (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States courts and judges (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States Public Policy (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Public Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States public policy articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
National Archives project (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is related to the United States National Archives and Records Administration. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.
WikiProject icon
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Government / Public policy (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Public Policy.
 
Version 0.5      (Rated B-Class)
Peer review This Socsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

Modern Arguments Added and Edit Removed[edit]

I don't think Wikipedia should be allowing foreigners a right to edit american history and blocking the Edit ability. That's vandalsim.

In section "Status of the judicial power before Marbury" the arguments are needlessly circular.

1) Congress has limitations in the Constitution, and must by vast majority repeal a law before presuming to step over it (assuming ratification success).

2) A balance of power is clearly spelt out in the Constitution and in previous founding documents, that decision pass from post to post, that no one post would rule over protest of all other.

3) The Constitution clearly gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction in deciding legal cases between the States and within Congress.

Arguing whether Congress can by vote ignore existing law for agenda, is circular.

Arguing if the Supreme court can revise law without repeal is circular.

POINT: the circular arguments would only be interesting if quoted from historic figures. modern scholars adding circular arguments which cannot be removed or disputed is an ill deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.202.186 (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Status of the judicial power before Marbury section is too long[edit]

The section is too long, does not shed light on the case itself, and breaks up the flow of the article. Unless there is an objection, I intend to remove it and rescue a paragraph or so of relevant information or at least radically shorten the section.--Tznkai (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I hereby state my disagreement with removing any of the text in the "judicial power before Marbury" section. What is happening in this nation today is a much more serious look at this idea of "supremacy" of the SCOTUS. All of the information in this entire article needs to be retained as essentially informative to this current question. I am thrilled and pleased with the content of the current article. My own analysis is that the Marbury v. Madison case illustrates that both Jefferson and Marshall were correct. The case was a clear and cogent instance of the legislature attempting to change the constitution through a simple act of legislation as opposed to using the Article V process. It is also an illustration of one of the three co-equal branches of government defending itself against incursions of another branch through the use of the constitution. It just so happens that the executive branch of the government (Jefferson) was in agreement with the judicial branch (Marshall) and the legislative branch was "the odd man out". Contrast this with the Citizens United case in which the judicial branch has created a "right to free speech" for incorporated entities without any constitutional text on the subject whatsoever, and then makes use of this "common law" to extend constitutional protections to such incorporate entities. Corporate Personhood is common law and can be and has been overruled by the legislative branches of government when the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was signed into law by Bush. Incorporated entities (institutionns) other than those specified in the constitution have no "right to to free speech". And individuals have such right because the First Amendment clearly says so. Institutional rights cannot be created by common law. Statutory law trumps common law especially when (as in the Marbury case) the statute(s) is/are IN the constitution. A non existent right cannot be "abridged" and thus a proper interpretation of the First Amendment precludes extra-constitutional institutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikcob (talkcontribs) 17:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Mikob, that is an interesting legal theory, but it is also original research. More to the point, it isn't relevant to this article in particular, but rather to the subject of judicial review in particular. As a whole, the section dirupts a naive reader trying to learn about Marbury by introducing concepts and arguments without context.--Tznkai (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Tznkai: while I might agree with the assertion of original research concerning my own evaluation of the Marbury case, that text was offered only in support of why I do not want anything removed from the entire collection of material on United States jurisprudence and the primacy of law in this country. If you feel that the text in question (the text under "judicial power before Marbury") would best be kept under the article on "Judicial Review" then please move it INTACT or with very few edits and reference it from here. Major deletions are NEVER a good idea. -- Mikcob — Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Looks like its already there: Judicial review in the United States.--Tznkai (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Nope. I cannot find any of the text of what is now "judicial power before Marbury" in the article on Judicial Review. Looks to me like the whole "judicial power before Marbury" section should be moved as is to the Judicial Rreview article and placed immediately ahead of the "Judicial review before the Constitution" section or in place of the "Judicial review before the Constitution" section.The Trucker (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
OOPs! I was looking at "Judicial Review in the United states" as opposed to "Judicial review". But the same general idea is applicable. I do not want to lose the text about Sir Edward Coke and, more importantly, the historical record about judicial review surrounding the creation and ratification of the United States Constitution.The Trucker (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2014[edit]

The source for the statement "authorized to hold courts and cognizance of personal demands of the value of 20 dollars" is listed as "Ch.6, Sec. 4, Judiciary Act of 1801" which is incorrect.

Firstly, it was chapter 4 that dealt with the courts, not chapter 6 (Source: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=002/llsl002.db&recNum=126). Second, this source doesn't have anything to do with the statement referenced in the wikipedia article. The statement "authorized to hold courts and cognizance of personal demands of the value of 20 dollars" is found in "Sec. 3d, Marbury v. Madison,AMDOCS: www.vlib.us." which is listed in the notes as reference 6.

Looks like the source section is all messed up and needs a lot of correction. Mikemike616 (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

yellow tickY Partly done. I have changed it to chapter 4. The rest will be done shortly. DJAMP4444 22:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)