Talk:Marbury v. Madison: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:07, 20 October 2011

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 15, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
February 12, 2007	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Law B‑class Top‑importance

	Law portal 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.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

U.S. Supreme Court cases B‑class Top‑importance

	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.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States courts and judges B‑class Top‑importance

	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.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

National Archives (inactive)

This article is within the scope of National Archives project, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.National ArchivesWikipedia:WikiProject National ArchivesTemplate:WikiProject National ArchivesNational Archives articles

Template:V0.5

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 24, 2005, February 24, 2006, February 24, 2007, February 24, 2008, February 24, 2009, and February 24, 2010.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Marbury redirect

There is a link to William Marbury (which is a good idea), but it just redirects to this article (which is bad). Someone should either remove the redirect, link, or make a stub page for Mr. Marbury. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.97.166.114 (talk • contribs) 00:37, February 9, 2006.

Logical problem?

The text quotes a source saying that in response to the Federalist attempt to restructure the courts the Jeffersonians (amongst other things) "canceled the Supreme Court term scheduled for June of that year [1802] ... seeking to delay a ruling on the constitutionality of the repeal act until months after the new judicial system was in operation." Not being a legal scholar, does this make sense? After all, is it not Marbury v. Madison (which occurs after the Judiciary act of 1802) that established SCOTUS's ability to rule on the constitutionality of legislative actions? In which case, why would the Jeffersonians be concerned, in 1802, with SCOTUS declaring their law unconstitutional, when SCOTUS hadn't recognized its own power to do so until 1803? Like I said, I'm not an expert, and so I'm not removing this, as I hope that someone who is can justify its inclusion; but, I thought I would point it out in case it is as glaringly illogical as it first appears. If it does make sense, someone might clarify how that is the case in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.38.227 (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of attempts by many to act like Marbury came out of nowhere (it makes a better story that way), it was generally agreed by most beforehand that the Supreme Court could declare laws unconstitutional, it was even discussed in the Federalist papers. Marbury is pretty much just notable for being the first time the Court exercised the power. This should probably be pointed out in the article.71.202.183.50 (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Book on the Subject

A new book on this subject was published in February of 2009 by Cliff Sloan and David McKean. The book, The Great Decision: Jefferson, Adams and the Battle for the Supreme Court, would be a good fit for the Further Reading section of the page. ISBN 10 is: 1586484265. I would add it, but I have a conflict of interest, as I have a business relationship with Mr. Sloan. Tombridge (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say go ahead and add it; I know it's a major release and not self-published or any nonsense like that. Wasn't one of the authors on the Colbert Report promoting it recently? Thanks for your concern about conflicts of interest, btw. postdlf (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LAME!!!!!!!!!!!!

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 A new book on this subject was published in February of 2009 by [[Cliff Sloan]] and David McKean.  The book, The Great Decision: Jefferson, Adams and the Battle for the Supreme Court, would be a good fit for the Further Reading section of the page.  ISBN 10 is: 1586484265.  I would add it, but I have a conflict of interest, as I have a business relationship with Mr. Sloan. [[User:Tombridge|Tombridge]] ([[User talk:Tombridge|talk]]) 02:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 :I say go ahead and add it; I know it's a major release and not self-published or any nonsense like that.  Wasn't one of the authors on the Colbert Report promoting it recently?  Thanks for your concern about conflicts of interest, btw.  '''[[User:Postdlf|postdlf]]''' (''[[User talk:Postdlf|talk]]'') 15:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
+LAME!!!!!!!!!!!!