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.
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 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)

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)

Exceptions clause[edit]

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 | talkcontribs 13:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC))