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.
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.
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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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)
YPartly done. I have changed it to chapter 4. The rest will be done shortly. DJAMP4444 22:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The Exceptions clause is in Article III Section 2 of the Constitution. Exceptions to what? It could be exceptions to the division spelled out between original and appellate jurisdiction, rather than to appellate jurisdiction itself. Unfortunately, I don't know of any writings to this effect. A restriction on appellate jurisdiction would today be called a restriction on granting cert. Quite strange to me. ( Martin | talk • contribs 13:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC))