Supreme Court Stories: Marbury v. Madison
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 фев 2013
- The "Supreme Court Stories" video series presents the true tales of people and events surrounding pivotal Supreme Court cases. In Marbury v. Madison, the first video of the series, political science professors Jocelyn Evans, Kirk Randazzo, David Woodard, and Kyle Kopko talk us through the election of 1800, the appointment of the "Midnight Judges," and the first instance of judicial review.
Soomo Learning
soomolearning.com/
![Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization [SCOTUSbrief]](/img/1.gif)
Sometimes I cry and ask myself why I ever decided to take Political Science.
hahahah same
but it's a beautiful thing no?
@@rafaelgradilla5102 its not
@@ilfado I felt that
cuz its sick
Yo this lady scared tf out of me she came out literally screaming.
Andrew Cox I swear I thought the same thing lol
Yeah! What the hell was that
hahah!
She emotionally unstable. Typical woman behavior. Unstable.
timestamp?
Couldn't be clearer, thank you so much!
P.s.: loved the dramatic tone lol
:) I hope my Constitutional Law Professor explains the case as clearly and as "dramatic" as you guys did! (Not in a bad way~! You guys made me realize how important this case was in history!)
Im glad my US/PR Constitutional Law professor explained the case as detailed and dramatically as he did. It made it one of my favorite cases ever.
The most important for the democracy!
this explained marbury VS. madison so clearly i really appreciate the video for helping me understand this case more in better detail
i got better sources special for cops and rights and court . if your a cop this will get you fired . lol. lose in court win anything you enforce on people. lol.
Did a better job than my textbook
Any thing can be easily understood if explained like this
Ugh thank you ! I was so confused as to what Marshall was actually saying, thank you for explaining it so clearly!!
Who's watching in 2024? Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that established the principle of judicial review, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. Thank you, Soomo. ❤
Thank you so much. I "learned" judicial review last year but did not understand it until I had completed this video today.
kinda funny how dramatic you guys are, watching this for my criminal justice class
u still posting m8
right?lol I'm watching for my public administration class.haha
funny cause remember when your a cop tickets are null and void .. haha .. against human rights .. right tot travel instead of drive . long as nobody gets hurt .. this case mixed into any case you win plus other things ... lots of crazy people become cops . personally disorders . i'd get fired sue be a good cop . fallow the law not legal . become sheriff and work with legislators to block state federal laws .. one law due process , right to face your accuser . criminal justice is criminal . edits lie most the time and you never hit a court room while serious criminals walk or get court and due process decent people victims get wards and drugs torture . end messed up . i might run for governor ... once you interfere or touch somebody you are liable . people have the right but agents don't have the right to interfere or control . lol. bad laws .. becarfull . specially if people ask is that a order or sure let me take your order . is that another order ? lol. soon you will be taking innocent set up people to wards and they get destroyed . drugged overdosed maybe hooked health problems ptsd . i could never be a cop . lol. they know they break the law cops feds fbi don't care ... horrible world by admitting they show this . lol.
@@cowpoke02 Oh now I get it. You've made everything so clear.
It is dramatic.
I don't know why this made me tear up. Great job.
It was supposed to. It is fiction. This is not what happened.
Why you think that?
Forum and Brim I'm not reading that bro. Give me the short story.
Marbury v. Madison was a setup in 1803. It was never about giving William Marbury a Judgeship. John Adams and his then Secretary of State John Marshall, and James Marshall (John's brother), set the whole thing up with other founding fathers to seize Article I Section 1 authority for the judiciary (judicial review). In other words, the three purposely did not deliver the commission to Marbury and others so when Thomas Jefferson arrived on his first day of work, he would refuse to deliver him so that they could take him to court-knowing that Marbury would lose (which is the point of the article)-so that they could strike down the Judiciary Act of 1789. In my opinion, it goes further back than that. Jefferson said that, to his "mortification," when he joined George Washington's cabinet he discovered they were all in favor of "kingly" government. In other words, they wanted a strong central government. We're told that judicial review was an oversight and that's why it's not in the constitution. Furthermore, the court and others quote Alexander Hamilton's essay, Federalist 78, stating that it supports Chief Justice John Marshall's usurpation of judicial review. It does, but there was a reason Hamilton wrote it anonymously and did not show Madison or John Jay before he had it published in two NY newspapers. More to the point, it was a lie. Madison wrote Jefferson 8 months before Hamilton published Federalist 78 (a month after they finished drafting the constitution). He told Jefferson that the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention specifically discussed giving the judiciary judicial review, but the majority decided against it. Their reason was that if they wanted to include the supreme court in the legislative process they would have included them in on the front end of the legislative process before a bill became law. His reasoning was that to give the supreme court a check on the legislature afterwards made not sense because the point was to prevent injurious laws before their signed into law and not after when a person might not be able to fight it all the way to the supreme court. This is a bold faced lie that is completely covered up by politicians, law professors, lawyers and the like. It's why we're living with Citizens United v. FEC. Since judicial review is illegal, all congress needs to do is ignore the opinion in that case. Even the Attorney General of the United States in 1986 invited the nation to ignore the supreme court when it tried to use judicial review. The court is supposed to merely be the final court of law, they are not supposed to legislate from the bench by interpreting the constitution when it becomes ambiguous. They're appointed for life, so our founders wanted to leave all legislative matters to the congress (hence the first sentence of Art. I § 1). If people didn't like what the congress decided, they could be voted out of office. By allowing the federal government to steal judicial review for the legislature, they could make decisions like Citizens United and congress could play the blame game. In other words, Congress passed the 2002 campaign finance reform act to make it look like they were trying to rein in spending in elections just so the supreme court could step in and strike it down. It's convenient because it allows congress people to have single digit approval ratings while still being elected 90-95% of the time. It has other ramifications too which has led to more of the same (a lack of accountability at the federal level).
Forum and Brim 0.o
Jeez dude, I only watched this video for a history assignment in school... I only understood like 60% of what you said m8...
This short video was absolutely delicious! I love, love, LOVE Political Science and learning so much about the American governments! Yum. Yum. Yum. 😋
My students first read about this for homework then I show this video the next day. It is a brilliant job of bringing both life and comprehension to this ever so important court case!
This video has saved my grade in intro poli sci! Thank you so much!
Great explanation. Judicial history is really interesting, especially in this case.
Indeed a great video. Thank you! I read the case as a 1-year... and watching this reminded me how truly great this country is. Please do more!
This video answered questions raised by other videos attempting to explain Marbury v. Madison. Thank-you for being thorough.
Thank you so much for making this short and helpful video! Very much appreciated.
For a guy that was so concerned about too much power, Thomas Jefferson certainly took a lot of questionable liberties with his office as president.
Such a great presentation! Thank you so much.
Wait can you guys do more cases? Would love to see a video like this for McCulloch v. Maryland and others. Thanks!
We were just discussing Marbury v. Madison in my h.s. government class on Thursday. I'll be showing this on Monday. Thanks for doing it and posting it.
excellent video, from the perspective of both an attorney and teacher of political science. Much thanks.
This video was so helpful! Wish you had videos on more supreme court cases. Still, thank you!
Amazing. Absolutely elucidates all the questions I had from the lecture from school.
Absolutely amazing. Thanks a bunch for sharing this. Now I have a better understanding of the judicial review. You got my sub, and keep up the great work.
I've had trouble understanding this court case, but this video really helped me understand the ruling and its significance... thank you so much! (I have an exam on this next week!)
I really understand this much better now, thank you!!!!
Thank you for this video! This could really help my students understand this landmark case.
Had to explain this case to my class today😂😂 totally helped..the link I had last week was taken down for some reason. Thank you
Thank you for that video. I found it very informative and I like your presentation of information.
I watched this in my Polsci class. I actually have my mid-term in a few hours. Maybe watching this, over and over, will help me.
ha thats me right now XD
Mr. Wyatt i didn't do so good either lol
thank you for this upload! really helped! :)))
What a great video! I wish all my history lessons were as intresting as this video. Thank You!
Amazing video/tutorial/explanation!!!!! AWESOME
this case was so hard to understand. you re video Rocked it!:D
Excellent way to explain. ❤ will help me with my comparative constitutional law finals tomorrow.
My teacher made me watch this and answer questions
Please make more supreme court cases!!!!
Thank you for this.
This was GREAT! Thank you!!
This video is dramatically awesome
I completely understand judicial review now, thank you sooooo much! =) Can you do a video on simple majority vs super majority?
watching this for school but I'd rather just look at the comments lmao
The three classes I've taken that have mentioned this case weren't even collectively as clear as this video is. Thank you.
thank you so much for this video
That was really helpful
Thank you so much 🤗🤗🤗
this was really well made. im really you guys did this
Soomo Publishing, you guys explain things so good.. But my favorite video is the declaration of independent song, you guys should just make more songs like that
extraordinarily helpful thanks
thank you am my teacher showed me this and I watch it but can you make another video that sums it up plz or in words and sentences a younger one can understand in order to past the test....thank you
Very clear information and really useful. Thanks a lot :)
Ohhh mannnn. it gave me goosebumps... good video.
really good video, really good.
Still confused;---;
thanks lot from Argentina! :)
WOW! This case was DEEP!
This is so clear!!
Really informative. Great Video!
I felt shivers down my spine
Great video!
You helped me on my History HW OMG Thankss!!!
Excelente video!
Great Video!
This is Beautiful
I am watching this for my eighth grade civics class.
I perfectly get it! Thanks a lot :)))
thank you
this very much helped.
i didn't get the end someone explain ?
ThankQ
Fascinating
First case to study for law school and I'm here instead of reading the decision..
Great Video
If the part of the 1789 Judiciary Act that extends the powers of the Supreme Court is unconstitutional because it expands the power of the Supreme Court, then the decision, itself must also be null and void as the Judged ability to make a ruling of the constitution also ''extends the power of the Supreme Court'' becoming a catch 22 situation. I say the mandamus should have been made by the Judge who refused. The question of what was constitutional should belong to the people to answer, not one person.
When did you guys stop making music videos
Page 112
The man who is called the Great Chief Justice was born on September 24, 1755, in a log cabin near Germantown, on the Virginia frontier.
In 1783 he married Marie Ambler, who bore him 10 children.
The Anti-Federalists had a fierce rebuttal of the outcome saying that the Supreme Court could extend its power in limitless ways using Judicial Review.
wat happened after
Listening to this presentation makes it very easy to understand the Marbury case because it comes down to two things: politics and intent.
Marshall and the SC made a power gap to take something that was never intended along flimsy lines of raionale. In the present, the SC seems to have arbitary power to support or deny policy decisions from the legislative and executive branch. An argument can be made either way about the founding fathers intent and whether the SC fulfills that purpose or not.
I think the SC's ability to render powerful decisions with no legal or executive challenge works against the intent of the founders instead of working towards it. That is why in Great Britain they have a higher court, but it cannot render decisions against Parliament or the Prime Minister.
Who has the ability to overturn an SC decision or who has the authority to challenge the SC? The answer is nobody. I understand why in many countries they have an SC as well, but they use term limits or age requirements, see Israeli SC. The fact that justice can remain on the court for the rest of their life goes against the original intent of the founding fathers to create a balance of power instead you have the opposite effect. They can in effect have the ability to make policy which is something that was never intended. Even though there have been justices that I respect like Scalia, Thomas, Brandeis, Harlan to name others who have served.
Nice job of explaining that in a simple and easy format.
so dramatic. love it
1:19 *****. ohhhhhh myyy gooodnnessssss
IMO, by not explaining Article III Section II a very interesting part of MvM is omitted as this section clearly defines the occasions the SC can hear cases with Original, as opposed to Appellate, Jurisdiction. And if I understand the Judiciary Act of 1789 Section XIII correctly, it expanded the set of circumstances with which the SC could hear a case. This Expansion was deemed unconstitutional.
Very good video. One thing though. The Judiciary Act of 1801 had some good intentions. It was meant to help Supreme Court Judges from riding circuit, where they would have to hear a case at the Circuit level with the possible of hearing it again at the National level. The Federalist obviously took advantage of this as you nicely stated. Also, Jefferson's party was not the Anti-Federalist, but the Republican Party (sometimes called Demo-Republican in textbooks so as not to confuse anyone)
Anyone else here for their Political Science class?
Interesting.
Cool.
Anyone else here For Arrowsmiths' Hist-111 Class? 3:30-4:50?
Law students unite !
Bravo
Hey I love all your music viedos could you make more perhaps me and my friends think you should
Hi Hollenhund
So before Marbury v Madison the Supreme Court could only say what the law wasn't?
that camera is a little too close
I think that the idea of the interpretation of the law has been expanded way beyond judicial review.
If the court cannot find the enumerated power under which a law has been enacted, the law is "null and void".
However, the courts began interpreting the "rule of law" to mean what they said it meant, and not bringing to play the constitutional tenor under which the law was enacted.
In the final analysis, it is the People who are the ultimate arbiters of the law, but the court took that away from the People. This is exactly what the Anti-Federalists (Constitutionalists) feared. That is why the vast majority of people believe that rights can be regulated by the government. If you regulate, it is no longer a right, but rather a privilege that the government may license, or destroy.
who else watching this @ school
I don't know what a wit of mandamus is but I had to do is for history class.I don't get it
Pretty cool
So what really was the importance of the Case of Marbury vs. Madison?
+Grace Renay From my understanding this gave the Court's the authority to interpret the laws, decided what is constitutional, and to nullify actions that are declared unconstitutional. This made the judiciary system just as powerful as the executive and legislative branch, who jobs are to make laws.
+Jason Blood thanks so much I understand now
The Supreme Court offers opinions. They cannot make laws. Only Congress can do that.
Don't you worry. There are more to come.
Al fin pude comprender. Thanks
This case literally makes no sense at all. The court took a case outside of its jurisdiction only to conclude that the matter lies outside of its jurisdiction. It's sad that the most important case in SCOTUS history is also the least logical.
EXACTLY!