Thank you so, so much for this. I had my first Constitutional Law class today and it was pretty fuzzy for me. This really solidified everything. Thank you for being so thorough, clear, and concise. Please keep making more videos!
This video is useless because the constitution itself is just toilet paper for oath breakers and the professional/managerial class folks who always turn a blind eye to the bill of rights and evil itself.
So awesome! My final is a week away, could you please PLEASE do a video going over Substantive Due Process?! Also Commerce Clause & Dormant Commerce Clause! Thank you!
This was great. Clear, precise, and easy to follow. I'm not studying to be a lawyer, but I am studying major Supreme Court decisions because I'm interested. Like someone else who posted below, I've watched several videos on Marbury v Madison. They gave an overview but did not fully explain a lot of nuance and context, such as the people who wrote Judiciary Act of 1789 were also the same people who wrote the Constitution. You also went over many key points several times rather than once. Do you take requests? Next up on my list is diving into McCulloch v. Maryland. Keep up the great work.
Thank you for this video! I have watched no less than 20 other videos today trying to really understand the ruling! You have been the only one to really explain it!
Not a law student but it seems to me it’s saying, nah, we can’t decide stuff that’s not constitutional…and also we get to decide what is constitutional or not. Anyway, interesting lecture. Had forgotten about this case from way back in government class in college. Will look for more of these to learn from. Thanks!
Need a heads-up on the issue of original jurisdiction. This is not a federal question or diversity jurisdiction issue for such. Instead, it comprises "affecting ambassador" and "state be a party"
Maybe I am an idiot, but Justice Marshall got it wrong. The interpretation has led to a lot of problems because it infers grammatical usage that is wrong. "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." If we remove the parenthetical elements from the statement we end up with "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction... with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." It means they could bypass the appellate requirement and allow the writ of mandamus to go forward/out. Congress had enacted a statute. The president agreed to abide by it and supported it. Marshal got it wrong, the Supreme Court had authority to issue the Writ of Mandamus. It means that they can assign cases directly to the Supreme Court through legislation, not limit the Supreme Court in its abilities to decide "Law and Fact". Modern interpretations of this are found in statutes like 205(h). Unconstitutional laws that further the ends of tyranny. If it grows how long until they assign constitutional question to a lower tribunal and tell Congress they cannot decide the "Law or Fact" of the matter? It defeats the checks and balances. They did it right on the actual matter of judicial review though.
This video is great but I am having such a hard time with the fact that you keep mispronouncing William Marbury's name! lol. The last portion of the name is pronounced 'bury' not 'barry'. Yes I'm nitpicking but no one likes it when their name is mispronounced even if its a several hundred years old dead dude. ;)
Sorry Sam but I don’t believe that is correct. It is like using the GPS Artificial Intelligence voice as evidence that the name is pronounced correctly. Everyone I have ever known with the last name Marbury has always pronounced it with a ‘urr’ sound not an ‘air’ sound. I appreciate your insight though. Maybe you know a Marbury that pronounces it differently. I have met people from different regions with the same last name that pronounce their names differently so it is possible.
This. I never noticed how he was pronouncing it because it my mind, he was pronouncing it correctly. American English is weird because a word may look one way, but sound another way. My hat goes off to those who learn it as a second language. Not sure I could have lol @@dhlong1697
![Justiciability and the "Case or Controversy Requirement" [LEAP Preview: Constitutional Law]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/r3PQ_FYkNRM/mqdefault.jpg)
![Justiciability and the "Case or Controversy Requirement" [LEAP Preview: Constitutional Law]](/img/tr.png)
![Powers of Congress: Taxing Power, Spending Power, and Commerce Power [LEAP Preview]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ty4apHCyemI/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you so, so much for this. I had my first Constitutional Law class today and it was pretty fuzzy for me. This really solidified everything. Thank you for being so thorough, clear, and concise. Please keep making more videos!
Awesome, glad it was helpful for you! More Constitutional Law videos will be out soon. 👍
This video is useless because the constitution itself is just toilet paper for oath breakers and the professional/managerial class folks who always turn a blind eye to the bill of rights and evil itself.
So awesome! My final is a week away, could you please PLEASE do a video going over Substantive Due Process?! Also Commerce Clause & Dormant Commerce Clause! Thank you!
You’re an excellent teacher!! Thank you for these videos 💜
This was great. Clear, precise, and easy to follow. I'm not studying to be a lawyer, but I am studying major Supreme Court decisions because I'm interested. Like someone else who posted below, I've watched several videos on Marbury v Madison. They gave an overview but did not fully explain a lot of nuance and context, such as the people who wrote Judiciary Act of 1789 were also the same people who wrote the Constitution. You also went over many key points several times rather than once.
Do you take requests? Next up on my list is diving into McCulloch v. Maryland.
Keep up the great work.
Been warching this man's videos the entire time I've been in law school. I 100% credit him with my success in making it to 3rd year lol
Same! So helpful to prep before finals and ensure understanding of all of the topics and brush up on any difficult topics
Absolutely excellent explanation of the case law and historical context of the case.
Thank you for this video! I have watched no less than 20 other videos today trying to really understand the ruling! You have been the only one to really explain it!
Such a great Breakdown. Good Job
Thank you!
Not a law student but it seems to me it’s saying, nah, we can’t decide stuff that’s not constitutional…and also we get to decide what is constitutional or not.
Anyway, interesting lecture. Had forgotten about this case from way back in government class in college. Will look for more of these to learn from. Thanks!
Awesome breakdown of the case.
Need a heads-up on the issue of original jurisdiction. This is not a federal question or diversity jurisdiction issue for such. Instead, it comprises "affecting ambassador" and "state be a party"
Question how do you use this in a Court room when the court is a business.
Excellent explanation, thanks! Third-week 1L and new subscriber.
Excellent lecture!
And ever since, SCOTUS keeps allowing the legislature to pass laws that erode the US Constitution. Thus, nullifying Marbury V. Madison.
Fantastic. Love how you break it down. Thank you so much for these videos.
💖😍🇺🇸💖
Great video, thank you!
the only reason I got a 3.4 my first semester of law school is b/c of these videos
Nice work! I'm glad that the videos were helpful.
Maybe I am an idiot, but Justice Marshall got it wrong. The interpretation has led to a lot of problems because it infers grammatical usage that is wrong.
"In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
If we remove the parenthetical elements from the statement we end up with "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction... with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." It means they could bypass the appellate requirement and allow the writ of mandamus to go forward/out.
Congress had enacted a statute. The president agreed to abide by it and supported it. Marshal got it wrong, the Supreme Court had authority to issue the Writ of Mandamus.
It means that they can assign cases directly to the Supreme Court through legislation, not limit the Supreme Court in its abilities to decide "Law and Fact". Modern interpretations of this are found in statutes like 205(h). Unconstitutional laws that further the ends of tyranny.
If it grows how long until they assign constitutional question to a lower tribunal and tell Congress they cannot decide the "Law or Fact" of the matter? It defeats the checks and balances.
They did it right on the actual matter of judicial review though.
what's JBK?
Thank you! Very informative. God bless.
In Christ,
MA
19:30
whos this professor?
Marbury vs Madison is unconstitutional. Change my mind.
You should have a link to a colleague in Spanish or other languages. For those who are bilingual having to learn terminology
This video is great but I am having such a hard time with the fact that you keep mispronouncing William Marbury's name! lol. The last portion of the name is pronounced 'bury' not 'barry'. Yes I'm nitpicking but no one likes it when their name is mispronounced even if its a several hundred years old dead dude. ;)
ruclips.net/video/fJJBrPDGwfA/видео.html&ab_channel=PronounceNames
Sorry Sam but I don’t believe that is correct. It is like using the GPS Artificial Intelligence voice as evidence that the name is pronounced correctly. Everyone I have ever known with the last name Marbury has always pronounced it with a ‘urr’ sound not an ‘air’ sound. I appreciate your insight though. Maybe you know a Marbury that pronounces it differently. I have met people from different regions with the same last name that pronounce their names differently so it is possible.
In most dialects of American English, both words are pronounced similarly.
This. I never noticed how he was pronouncing it because it my mind, he was pronouncing it correctly. American English is weird because a word may look one way, but sound another way. My hat goes off to those who learn it as a second language. Not sure I could have lol @@dhlong1697