Jan Meijer lol let’s try 24 hours to write 3 pages. But yes this and a few other videos helped me by far. The government and history is definitely my worst subject.
Some of the language was a bit confusing so you will require a background knowledge, but I love how it has visuals for us visual learners, makes it easier to understand
Summary: John Adams appoints new judges and told his secretary to deliver their commissions (paper that says they can work), but his secretary didn’t do it until after John Adams was removed from office and replaced by Madison. Then Madison took office and told his secretary that he didn’t have to deliver the commissions. Because of this one of the judges that Adams previously appointed sought to get his commission somehow so he sued. From the case they found: the judges have the right to get their commission and it’s not the judicial branches job to enforce (I think). To come to the verdict the judge in hard of the case looked to the constitution to see if what they did was constitutional, which is called judicial review.
While this was a good summary, there were two major errors. Jefferson was the one who replaced Adams as president, and Madison was the secretary who was told not to deliver the commissions.
So if somebody goes to complain that five unelected officials have - say - changed the state definitions of marriage, then don't complain to the Obergefell court - complain to the Marbury court. That courts have the authority to invalidate laws that are contrary to the constitution has been established 200 years ago and accepted since. (Though this also leaves an unfortunate legacy: the next time courts would invalidate a law, it was in the dreadful Dred Scott decision.)
AKJKJEF I'M PANICKING THIS IS SO LAST MINUTE BUT I GOT THIS MUCH...President John Adams wanted to expand the federalist party’s influence by making the Judiciary Act 1801 and appointing a bunch of new judges because he was going to lose the election to Jefferson. Marbury was one of those judges who was going to be newly appointed. He didn’t get his commission letter on time because the government changed, Adams lost and Jefferson was appointed to office, along with his new secretary of state, James Madison. Madison refused to give Marbury the commission letter. Marbury tried to sue him. The courts however, identified the act as unconstitutional because it expands the power of the supreme court beyond what is granted by the constitution and conflicts with article 3 so Marbury lost the case. (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but my brain is being deep fried rn)
@@Lawperson97 yes I am! I'm also not american and from a country that has the romano-germanic system (civil law not common law) so all of that is too complicated to me but ty
This is the first time I've ever seen anyone mention the fact that Marshall was the Secretary of State who failed to deliver the commissions. Nobody ever asks why he didn't recuse himself when the case reached the Supreme Court.
SUMMARY FOR DUMMIES: Dude hires a bunch of judges and asks his bro to deliver them their letters saying their hired. He leaves office and tells the new guy to not deliver the letters. One of the guys who was hired and didn’t get a letter sues
I am Indian When I was studying world politics, then Marbury vs Madison controversy came in front of me, so I was curious to know about them in detail and I was searching on RUclips, then your video came in front of me. You explained very well.
So the Supreme Court struck down a law that extended its power beyond the limits of the Constitution...by extending its own power beyond the limits of the Constitution...
False. The power of Judicial Review was fully intended by the Founders. For example, Hamilton (in Federalist Paper Number 78) declared it was necessary to guarantee a limited government (a concept so "beloved" by "conservatives"). "Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through . . . the courts of justice; whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the . . . constitution void. Without this, all . . . rights or privileges would amount to nothing. * * * * The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning . . . ." Of course, "conservatives" only object to this power when the courts do something they don't like, you never hear them object to Judicial Review in cases such as Citizens United, or D.C. v. Heller (striking down a gun control law). To be fair, "liberals" are guilty of the same thing. As the old saying goes: Whether one approves or condemns a decision depends on whose ox was gored!
The former part of your comment is correct, whereas the latter part is wrong as the Supreme Court in Article 3 of the U.S Constitution has been given the power of Judicial review as its original jurisdiction by its makers. @jacob_peterson
Dear @@classonbread5757: Whenever it's used in ways they don't like. On the other hand, when it's used in ways they like you never hear them complain about "judge-made law" - for example in the D.C. v. Heller, Citizen's United, and Hobby Lobby cases. All examples of Judicial Review used to strike down laws conservatives disliked.
I find it funny and sad how everyone forgets about poor Marbury. The court literally took his side and he won the case, but the dude still never got his dang commission for some reason.
However most misinterpret that quote to mean that the judiciary was the sole and exclusive arbiter on the matter when no such sentiment was expressed at any point in the case
I dunno if this will make sense to anyone... But this is the reason why the power of Judicial Review was first demonstrated. However, because Judicial Review isnt a thing at that time, Judge Marshall cannot proceed with it because under the Constitution, such a power was not vested in the Judiciaeyry yet. However, the power was provided through an Act that allowed for an expanded judicial power. This Act he would deem to be unconstitutional, and the mere fact he even used the power repulsed him. In short, he used power of judicial review which was unconstitutional, so he could not decide on case. Its better if you read the whole case text. It's just 20 pages or so.
Well, you see, the second amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." While it does state that this right will "not be infringed," it also states that this "militia" must be "well regulated." The regulatory laws we have are put in place to provide the regulation that the constitution calls for; personally, I believe that with all the shootings recently, one could argue that the usage and distribution of firearms are not well regulated and that more reforms are needed to enforce this section of the amendment. This will not infringe on the rights of the people, for those determined capable to responsibly own a firearm will be able to own one. However, that is just my opinion: the great thing about our country is that everyone is free to decide what they believe. :)
It does apply. This case dealt with the Supreme Court's ORIGINAL Jurisdiction, that is with the cases it can hear DIRECTLY, rather than on APPEAL from lower court decisions. The issuance of a Mandamus is an exercise of ORIGINAL Jurisdiction, which the Constitution didn't grant to the Supreme Court in cases like this. But in the gun control cases (such as D.C. v. Heller) the Supreme Court was exercising APPELLATE Jurisdiction, in a manor the Constitution does provide for. Thus it could review D.C.'s law, and through the use of Judicial Review declare it unconstitutional. P.S. - I know this is complicated. That's why I had to go through three years of Law School, plus the hell of cramming for the Bar Exam, plus the heck of taking the Bar Exam, before I could practice Law!
It absolutely does apply. The problem is that the SC is complacent with the actions of the Legislative. They could strike down each and every law restricting gun ownership, but they won’t. There a tons of invalid laws and government practices that need to be struck down, but they won’t do it.
there is so much legal mumbo jumbo that I dont even know what im gonna do. Im just gonna turn my assignment in for half points and do the extra credit lmao
Once in office, Jefferson directed his secretary of state, James Madison, to withhold the commission, and Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel Madison to act.
One commentary I listened to describes this as a conspiracy by Federalists, to check on the incoming anti-Federalist presidency, to establish a stronger position of the nascent federal Supreme Court by securing its right to judicial review. So the omission of dispatch of commission was deliberate, Madison withheld them as anticipated, prompting Marbury vs Madison in the Supreme Court presided by Marshall. Marshall's verdict was designed to secure Supreme Court's authority on judicial review, not to enforce Marbury's commission. The latter would have been hard without cooperation from Jefferson and Madison, but the former established a precedence that the Jefferson presidency could not challenge without risking its own future executive decisions.
A writ of Mandamus in lamest terms is basically an order written by the court telling the executive they have to do something. Marbury wanted the court to tell Madison that he had to appoint him to the bench. Think of it like a kid asking his/her mom to tell the big brother to stop picking on them.
Dear Janneth Martinez: In a sense, both Marbury and Madison "won". (It's one of the things which drove Jefferson mad.) Marbury was told he had the right to be a judge, while Madison was told the Supreme Court couldn't do a thing about it!
Since Marshall was the one who did not deliver the commissions in the first place, he never should have ruled on the case at all. Clearly a conflict of interest. Anyone could construe that he orchestrated the whole thing from the beginning.
Dear MultiProudMother: Arguable, at best. And any "conflict" is resolved by the fact that HE LET JEFFERSON AND MADISON GET AWAY WITH IT! (A fact which angered Jefferson no end.) As for your "construing", I think that is more a case of wild speculation.
Thomas Jefferson told Madison not to deliver Marbury's commission to him. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 (passed by Congress), Marbury was already appointed. By signing Marbury’s commission, the President (John Adams)- the executive branch - legally appointed him as a justice of the peace in comport with the Judiciary Act. Goodluck on final!!
They weren't giving themselves more power just because they felt like it, they gave themselves more power to overcome the problem of having laws contradicting the constitution...
It's really not lol... + you can't have an efficient and coherant system where laws contradict the constitution... even if the judiciary branch has a lot of power it's justified
Overpowered ?Seriously No matter how much the US Supreme Court strikes down Government's action ,it is still followed .It is what we call the Tyranny of the Executive branch.
Ear Gasm The first part is correct but the court definitely does have to much power. They should rule on law that is made, not make law from the bench. Also according to the constitution Congress has the power to over-rule a decision made by the court with a majority vote.
So marbury was not comissioned as the justice of peace through and act passed by adams which was ultimately declared unconstitutional by Madison (the secretary of Jefferson).. Marbury lost Madison Won ?
See my work. When a man(Marberry) has his rights violated. He must seek remedy. He did it through writ of mandamus. Forget this video. See my video on this case. They look to Blackstones commentaries
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks, this really helped! I had 24 hours to write a page about this but I couldn't find any websites that explained it well for me.
Jan Meijer lol let’s try 24 hours to write 3 pages. But yes this and a few other videos helped me by far. The government and history is definitely my worst subject.
Some of the language was a bit confusing so you will require a background knowledge, but I love how it has visuals for us visual learners, makes it easier to understand
Me too !
This video made me cry. I couldn't understand anything
Lmao
Same
same 😔
Fuk, me too
roxi e nebuna
Summary:
John Adams appoints new judges and told his secretary to deliver their commissions (paper that says they can work), but his secretary didn’t do it until after John Adams was removed from office and replaced by Madison. Then Madison took office and told his secretary that he didn’t have to deliver the commissions. Because of this one of the judges that Adams previously appointed sought to get his commission somehow so he sued. From the case they found: the judges have the right to get their commission and it’s not the judicial branches job to enforce (I think). To come to the verdict the judge in hard of the case looked to the constitution to see if what they did was constitutional, which is called judicial review.
THANK YOU!!!
While this was a good summary, there were two major errors.
Jefferson was the one who replaced Adams as president, and Madison was the secretary who was told not to deliver the commissions.
@@emilystacks5690it’s not completely right look at the other guys reply for the real thing
Most important thing about this case: established judicial review.
So if somebody goes to complain that five unelected officials have - say - changed the state definitions of marriage, then don't complain to the Obergefell court - complain to the Marbury court. That courts have the authority to invalidate laws that are contrary to the constitution has been established 200 years ago and accepted since. (Though this also leaves an unfortunate legacy: the next time courts would invalidate a law, it was in the dreadful Dred Scott decision.)
It also shows the constitution is the law of the land.
AKJKJEF I'M PANICKING THIS IS SO LAST MINUTE BUT I GOT THIS MUCH...President John Adams wanted to expand the federalist party’s influence by making the Judiciary Act 1801 and appointing a bunch of new judges because he was going to lose the election to Jefferson. Marbury was one of those judges who was going to be newly appointed. He didn’t get his commission letter on time because the government changed, Adams lost and Jefferson was appointed to office, along with his new secretary of state, James Madison. Madison refused to give Marbury the commission letter. Marbury tried to sue him. The courts however, identified the act as unconstitutional because it expands the power of the supreme court beyond what is granted by the constitution and conflicts with article 3 so Marbury lost the case.
(feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but my brain is being deep fried rn)
Ima take this and type it as my homework, so thanks 😈
You Godsend, you!!
omg thank you you saved my life
THANK YOU
This helped me more than the video. Thank you
This makes me....Emotionless
Ong
wtf. I have no idea what this is talking about. My midterm is in 2 1/2 hours. fml
Did u pass?
I have my midterm over these case briefs tomorrow. Fml and god help me.
@@OTBASHhow’d it go?
Hiemlers History has a better video. Good luck on your test and you’re welcome
To all the people who are confused.... that’s because Quimbee is a source for law students. It’s not geared towards people who aren’t in law school
o that makes sense ty
I'm in law school and I don't understand 🙂
@@megumin4564 im assuming you’re a 1L :) (sorry if i’m wrong) you’ll understand it in no time!
@@Lawperson97 yes I am! I'm also not american and from a country that has the romano-germanic system (civil law not common law) so all of that is too complicated to me but ty
@@megumin4564 im in Louisiana so we’re the only US state to have to learn roman civil law. You’re right, it’s very different and confusing
This is the first time I've ever seen anyone mention the fact that Marshall was the Secretary of State who failed to deliver the commissions. Nobody ever asks why he didn't recuse himself when the case reached the Supreme Court.
My ConLaw book does. "As a result, some have questioned whether Marshall should have participated in the Court's resolution of the case."
Actually, that's a good question!
SUMMARY FOR DUMMIES:
Dude hires a bunch of judges and asks his bro to deliver them their letters saying their hired. He leaves office and tells the new guy to not deliver the letters. One of the guys who was hired and didn’t get a letter sues
Literally 👍
Woww broo loved it
Thanks
Who won the case itself tho
Now I get it
I am Indian When I was studying world politics, then Marbury vs Madison controversy came in front of me, so I was curious to know about them in detail and I was searching on RUclips, then your video came in front of me. You explained very well.
Asian Indian or American Indian.
@@promotingnwofivehundredmil1369 lol
I’m still confused af I’m about to fail this test
준최윤 what was your grade
sup korean
😭
Thank you for the clear explanation for this case. I can now teach it better to my students
Donna Clark mrs clark IS THAT YOU!!?
@@최윤준-y7e lol
Does this case set the precedent that any law that goes against the Constitution is null and void?
Yes
Even though english isn't my first language the video helped a lot ! It's more clear to me thanks for that.
Thanks so much for explaining this case in layman's terms! I so appreciate it!
Finals in 5 hours and I'm here. Judging by the comments this is the last stage for law students.
its the last stage for law students in russia too/ especially when you have to past the history of law of foreing countries
my favorite anime
mine as well
I think death note is better. But this is a close second 😍😍😍
@NCK 8 It's a joke.
Mr. Got That bruh
Nice choice
Please make this easier for student to understand
Mayor Quimbee is my favorite mayor
So the Supreme Court struck down a law that extended its power beyond the limits of the Constitution...by extending its own power beyond the limits of the Constitution...
False. The power of Judicial Review was fully intended by the Founders.
For example, Hamilton (in Federalist Paper Number 78) declared it was necessary to guarantee a limited government (a concept so "beloved" by "conservatives").
"Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through . . . the courts of justice; whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the . . . constitution void. Without this, all . . . rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
* * * *
The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning . . . ."
Of course, "conservatives" only object to this power when the courts do something they don't like, you never hear them object to Judicial Review in cases such as Citizens United, or D.C. v. Heller (striking down a gun control law). To be fair, "liberals" are guilty of the same thing. As the old saying goes: Whether one approves or condemns a decision depends on whose ox was gored!
The former part of your comment is correct, whereas the latter part is wrong as the Supreme Court in Article 3 of the U.S Constitution has been given the power of Judicial review as its original jurisdiction by its makers. @jacob_peterson
@@Shrdlu42 when do the conservatives disagree with this power then?
Dear @@classonbread5757:
Whenever it's used in ways they don't like. On the other hand, when it's used in ways they like you never hear them complain about "judge-made law" - for example in the D.C. v. Heller, Citizen's United, and Hobby Lobby cases. All examples of Judicial Review used to strike down laws conservatives disliked.
@@Shrdlu42 DC was defying the right of the people in the Heller case.
🤷♂️
I find it funny and sad how everyone forgets about poor Marbury. The court literally took his side and he won the case, but the dude still never got his dang commission for some reason.
They explained the reason, issuing the mandamus would be unconstitutional.
However most misinterpret that quote to mean that the judiciary was the sole and exclusive arbiter on the matter when no such sentiment was expressed at any point in the case
I dunno if this will make sense to anyone...
But this is the reason why the power of Judicial Review was first demonstrated. However, because Judicial Review isnt a thing at that time, Judge Marshall cannot proceed with it because under the Constitution, such a power was not vested in the Judiciaeyry yet. However, the power was provided through an Act that allowed for an expanded judicial power. This Act he would deem to be unconstitutional, and the mere fact he even used the power repulsed him.
In short, he used power of judicial review which was unconstitutional, so he could not decide on case.
Its better if you read the whole case text. It's just 20 pages or so.
Bless you. I have my first law midterm tomorrow on this case. ❤️
Thank you so much! I had been searching for an easy summary of the case, and this helped a lot.
Why doesn't this apply to laws restricting which firearms I am allowed to own?
Sinister Pumpkin Nice propaganda.
Well, you see, the second amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." While it does state that this right will "not be infringed," it also states that this "militia" must be "well regulated." The regulatory laws we have are put in place to provide the regulation that the constitution calls for; personally, I believe that with all the shootings recently, one could argue that the usage and distribution of firearms are not well regulated and that more reforms are needed to enforce this section of the amendment. This will not infringe on the rights of the people, for those determined capable to responsibly own a firearm will be able to own one. However, that is just my opinion: the great thing about our country is that everyone is free to decide what they believe. :)
It does apply. This case dealt with the Supreme Court's ORIGINAL Jurisdiction, that is with the cases it can hear DIRECTLY, rather than on APPEAL from lower court decisions. The issuance of a Mandamus is an exercise of ORIGINAL Jurisdiction, which the Constitution didn't grant to the Supreme Court in cases like this.
But in the gun control cases (such as D.C. v. Heller) the Supreme Court was exercising APPELLATE Jurisdiction, in a manor the Constitution does provide for. Thus it could review D.C.'s law, and through the use of Judicial Review declare it unconstitutional.
P.S. - I know this is complicated. That's why I had to go through three years of Law School, plus the hell of cramming for the Bar Exam, plus the heck of taking the Bar Exam, before I could practice Law!
It absolutely does apply. The problem is that the SC is complacent with the actions of the Legislative. They could strike down each and every law restricting gun ownership, but they won’t. There a tons of invalid laws and government practices that need to be struck down, but they won’t do it.
@@rzin2010 says regulated milita not regulated right to bear arms. Idiot
there is so much legal mumbo jumbo that I dont even know what im gonna do. Im just gonna turn my assignment in for half points and do the extra credit lmao
Thanks for the video
Did the judges get their jobs?
Other than that, super cool!!!
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
I still don't know what happened
🤣🤣
What was the source of the writ of mandamus ordering the delivery of the commission to Marbury? Who issued it?
Once in office, Jefferson directed his secretary of state, James Madison, to withhold the commission, and Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel Madison to act.
Thanks It's really help me in my reading.
Is there any law students who can help me understand law case in the level 100
One commentary I listened to describes this as a conspiracy by Federalists, to check on the incoming anti-Federalist presidency, to establish a stronger position of the nascent federal Supreme Court by securing its right to judicial review.
So the omission of dispatch of commission was deliberate, Madison withheld them as anticipated, prompting Marbury vs Madison in the Supreme Court presided by Marshall.
Marshall's verdict was designed to secure Supreme Court's authority on judicial review, not to enforce Marbury's commission.
The latter would have been hard without cooperation from Jefferson and Madison, but the former established a precedence that the Jefferson presidency could not challenge without risking its own future executive decisions.
I'm French and we learn this case in my law class and i don't understand I wanna die 💀
Is it me or this video is unclear and hard to understand what its explaining
What exactly is a Write of Mandamus? I'm a little confused on how it works.
A writ of Mandamus in lamest terms is basically an order written by the court telling the executive they have to do something. Marbury wanted the court to tell Madison that he had to appoint him to the bench. Think of it like a kid asking his/her mom to tell the big brother to stop picking on them.
Una pena que no haya subtitulos en español 😞
lastima
Many Thanks, greetings from Holland :)
Wait so who won?
Dear Janneth Martinez:
In a sense, both Marbury and Madison "won". (It's one of the things which drove Jefferson mad.) Marbury was told he had the right to be a judge, while Madison was told the Supreme Court couldn't do a thing about it!
Best video comparing with other ones. Great job
Relly helpful. Thanku sir. From Pakistan
This case was the first time I’ve seen a judge use the word “behooved” in an opinion… Thank you Constitutional Law 🤭😭
can you do make a video on mamat bin daud v gov of malaysia 🥺
Since Marshall was the one who did not deliver the commissions in the first place, he never should have ruled on the case at all. Clearly a conflict of interest. Anyone could construe that he orchestrated the whole thing from the beginning.
Dear MultiProudMother:
Arguable, at best. And any "conflict" is resolved by the fact that HE LET JEFFERSON AND MADISON GET AWAY WITH IT! (A fact which angered Jefferson no end.)
As for your "construing", I think that is more a case of wild speculation.
I have an a push test tomorrow, I’m dead meat
Why was it unconstitutional
Stated in the video
Nice, this will help with my common law case law... THX from Europe :)
So democratic republican party was once one party
thaks this really helped !!!!!
What caused the case?
Thomas Jefferson told Madison not to deliver Marbury's commission to him. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 (passed by Congress), Marbury was already appointed. By signing Marbury’s commission, the President (John Adams)- the executive branch - legally appointed him as a justice of the peace in comport with the Judiciary Act.
Goodluck on final!!
hahaha who would have guessed a guy named Poontang Pounder would be helping us with our homework hahah
thx i found this very useful
Thank you sir!
am i dumb cause i dont understand anything
Everyone here for tests and I'm here for knowledge
Same
Thank u its very helped
why didnt madision want to give murbury the commision and wtf is a commision?
ugh...... history
now explain it like I'm 3...
Marbury versus Madison was wrongly decided. You can't just give your branch more power because you feel like it.
They weren't giving themselves more power just because they felt like it, they gave themselves more power to overcome the problem of having laws contradicting the constitution...
Which is giving yourself more power because you feel like it...... The judicial branch is way too overpowered.
It's really not lol... + you can't have an efficient and coherant system where laws contradict the constitution... even if the judiciary branch has a lot of power it's justified
Overpowered ?Seriously No matter how much the US Supreme Court strikes down Government's action ,it is still followed .It is what we call the Tyranny of the Executive branch.
Ear Gasm The first part is correct but the court definitely does have to much power. They should rule on law that is made, not make law from the bench. Also according to the constitution Congress has the power to over-rule a decision made by the court with a majority vote.
I'm an exchange student and I need to write an essay about marbury but I don't understand anything in US history ☠️☠️
So marbury was not comissioned as the justice of peace through and act passed by adams which was ultimately declared unconstitutional by Madison (the secretary of Jefferson).. Marbury lost Madison Won ?
It was unresolved because the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction, and Maybury had no legal or equitable remedies.
I’m here bc of a test
I,m so lost
See my work. When a man(Marberry) has his rights violated. He must seek remedy. He did it through writ of mandamus. Forget this video. See my video on this case. They look to Blackstones commentaries
Writing a Writ of Quo Warranto, listed Marbury and other key Stare Decisis. Marbury the foothold.
this is too complicated
....huh?
how is this a landmark case???
Dear Malina Bellk:
It's the first time the power of Judicial Review was used by the Supreme Court.
it established judicial review which is very very important in the current judiciary branch
NICE......I UNDERSTAND IT
Its not call comment area it called comment section
thx homie
thats all i can really say :)
i have a frq test and i know absolutely nothing:)
So Adams was huge weasel....the shenanigans of politics began bright and early....oh those genius of the founding fathers
Always cronies.
Awesome video
dude, i have no idea wtf you're talking about. Try next time breaking your vocabulary to simpler terms for us High Schoolers to understand.
i love u