Marbury v. Madison, EXPLAINED [AP Gov Required Cases]

00:06:04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBvUFlqlsyk

Zusammenfassung

TLDRThe video discusses the landmark Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison, which established the principle of judicial review. It begins by providing context: the Federalist President John Adams, after losing the election of 1800 to Thomas Jefferson, appointed several judges to maintain Federalist influence. William Marbury, one such appointee, did not receive his commission in time, leading him to sue James Madison, Jefferson’s Secretary of State, to compel its delivery. The Supreme Court faced three questions: whether Marbury had a right to the commission, whether a writ of mandamus was the correct legal remedy, and whether the Court had the power to issue it. While the Court affirmed Marbury’s right to the commission and the writ as the correct remedy, it declared it could not issue it due to lacking the original jurisdiction, as outlined in Article 3 of the Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall further ruled that part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which allowed for such action, was unconstitutional. This decision established the judiciary's power to review and strike down legislation conflicting with the Constitution, reinforcing the courts as a co-equal branch of government tasked with upholding constitutional law.

Mitbringsel

  • ⚖️ Marbury v. Madison is a foundational case in U.S. legal history.
  • 🚪 The case established the principle of judicial review.
  • 📜 It involved issues of constitutional law and the separation of powers.
  • 📝 Marbury sought a writ of mandamus due to an undelivered commission.
  • 🚫 The Judiciary Act of 1789 was partially deemed unconstitutional.
  • 🗳️ The case arose from political tensions between Federalists and Democratic-Republicans.
  • 💼 John Marshall played a key role in defining the Court's authority.
  • 🔍 The decision reinforced the judiciary as a check on legislative power.
  • 🇺🇸 The outcome cemented the Supreme Court's role in U.S. governance.
  • 📚 Understanding this case is crucial for AP Government curriculum.

Zeitleiste

  • 00:00:00 - 00:06:04

    The ruling in Marbury v. Madison denied Marbury his commission, but more significantly, it established the principle of judicial review, allowing the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of laws, thereby elevating its role as the final interpreter of the Constitution. This was a pivotal moment in the history of the Supreme Court, expanding its powers and setting a precedent for its future role in evaluating congressional laws. The video ends by emphasizing the importance of this case and encouraging viewers to revisit the content for better understanding.

Mind Map

Mind Map

Häufig gestellte Fragen

  • What was the main issue in the Marbury v. Madison case?

    The main issue was whether the Supreme Court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus for Marbury to receive his commission.

  • Who were the main parties involved in the Marbury v. Madison case?

    The main parties were William Marbury and Secretary of State James Madison.

  • What was decided about Marbury's right to his commission?

    The Supreme Court decided that Marbury was legally entitled to his commission.

  • Why did Chief Justice John Marshall declare the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional?

    He declared it unconstitutional because it extended the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction beyond what Article 3 of the Constitution allows.

  • What is judicial review?

    Judicial review is the Supreme Court's power to interpret the Constitution and strike down laws that violate it.

  • What significant power did the Marbury v. Madison case establish?

    It established the power of judicial review for the Supreme Court.

  • Why was Marbury v. Madison considered the most important Supreme Court case?

    Because it established the principle of judicial review, allowing the courts to uphold or strike down congressional laws based on constitutionality.

  • What did the Supreme Court conclude regarding its jurisdiction in the Marbury case?

    The Court concluded it did not have original jurisdiction in the case as Marbury and Madison were neither states nor ambassadors.

  • How did President John Adams try to influence the judiciary before leaving office?

    He appointed several Federalist judges through the filling of new judgeships created by Congress.

Weitere Video-Zusammenfassungen anzeigen

Erhalten Sie sofortigen Zugang zu kostenlosen YouTube-Videozusammenfassungen, die von AI unterstützt werden!
Untertitel
en
Automatisches Blättern:
  • 00:00:00
    well hey there and welcome back to
  • 00:00:00
    heimler's history in this video we're
  • 00:00:02
    looking at another one of your required
  • 00:00:04
    Supreme Court cases for the AP
  • 00:00:05
    Government curriculum namely Marberry
  • 00:00:07
    versus Madison in 1803 which is arguably
  • 00:00:10
    the most significant case in Supreme
  • 00:00:12
    Court history so if you're ready to get
  • 00:00:14
    them brain cows milked judicial review
  • 00:00:16
    Style with then let's get to it so as
  • 00:00:18
    always let's begin with the facts of the
  • 00:00:20
    case remember that the first two
  • 00:00:21
    political parties to emerge in our Fair
  • 00:00:22
    Nation were the Federalists and the
  • 00:00:24
    Democratic Republicans and they fought
  • 00:00:25
    bitterly on just about every issue
  • 00:00:27
    available to fight about and as it
  • 00:00:28
    turned out the Federalist president
  • 00:00:30
    President John Adams lost the election
  • 00:00:31
    of 1800 to democratic Republican
  • 00:00:33
    candidate Thomas Jefferson that was a
  • 00:00:35
    bitter loss for the Federalist but Adams
  • 00:00:37
    hatched a plan to try to dilute the
  • 00:00:39
    power and influence of the Democratic
  • 00:00:40
    Republicans once Jefferson took office
  • 00:00:42
    the Federalist dominated Congress
  • 00:00:44
    created a slew of new courts and
  • 00:00:46
    judgeships and as you probably remember
  • 00:00:47
    it is the president who is
  • 00:00:48
    constitutionally responsible for
  • 00:00:50
    appointing federal judges so Adams in
  • 00:00:52
    his last days as president packed the
  • 00:00:54
    federal Judiciary full of federalist
  • 00:00:56
    judges who would likely frustrate
  • 00:00:57
    Jefferson's policy agenda during his
  • 00:00:59
    presidency that's why they called him
  • 00:01:00
    old sneaky
  • 00:01:03
    Adams they didn't don't don't write that
  • 00:01:05
    down anyway Adams was signing
  • 00:01:07
    commissions for these judges right up
  • 00:01:08
    until the moment he left office and most
  • 00:01:10
    of them were delivered but a few of them
  • 00:01:12
    were not and when Jefferson took office
  • 00:01:13
    he ordered his secretary of state to
  • 00:01:15
    leave those undelivered commissions
  • 00:01:17
    undelivered well that really chapped the
  • 00:01:19
    thighs of a guy named William Marbury
  • 00:01:20
    who was one of those judges who had been
  • 00:01:22
    appointed but had not yet received his
  • 00:01:24
    commission and so he sued Madison in the
  • 00:01:25
    Supreme Court to get his commission by
  • 00:01:27
    what's known as a RIT of mandamos which
  • 00:01:29
    is just a court order for an official to
  • 00:01:31
    do what they're legally required to do
  • 00:01:33
    so Marbury wanted the court to issue a
  • 00:01:35
    RIT of mamos in order for Madison to
  • 00:01:37
    deliver the commission okay now let's
  • 00:01:38
    talk about the constitutional principle
  • 00:01:40
    at stake in this case now what I'm about
  • 00:01:41
    to tell you is not going to sound
  • 00:01:42
    relevant to this case so you're just
  • 00:01:44
    going to have to stick with me here the
  • 00:01:45
    constitutional principle at stake in
  • 00:01:47
    this case is the jurisdiction Clauses in
  • 00:01:49
    article 3 of The Constitution now
  • 00:01:51
    remember article 3 is all about the
  • 00:01:52
    judicial branch and how it gets its
  • 00:01:54
    power and what kinds of cases it can
  • 00:01:56
    hear jurisdiction means the scope of
  • 00:01:58
    power the court exerc izes over those
  • 00:02:00
    different kinds of cases so article 3
  • 00:02:02
    states that the Supreme Court has both
  • 00:02:04
    original jurisdiction and appellate
  • 00:02:06
    jurisdiction original jurisdiction means
  • 00:02:07
    the court has power to hear certain
  • 00:02:09
    cases for the first time appell at
  • 00:02:11
    jurisdiction means that the court has
  • 00:02:12
    power to hear appeals from lower federal
  • 00:02:14
    courts in other cases now I'm not
  • 00:02:15
    slinging vocabulary around just for
  • 00:02:17
    funsies you really have to understand
  • 00:02:19
    jurisdiction to understand this case now
  • 00:02:21
    according to article three of the
  • 00:02:22
    Constitution there are only a narrow set
  • 00:02:24
    of circumstances which the Supreme Court
  • 00:02:26
    has original jurisdiction over and they
  • 00:02:28
    are as follows all cases affecting
  • 00:02:30
    ambassadors other public ministers and
  • 00:02:33
    councils and those in which a state
  • 00:02:35
    shall be party the Supreme Court shall
  • 00:02:37
    have original jurisdiction so the
  • 00:02:39
    Supreme Court only has original
  • 00:02:41
    jurisdiction in cases involving States
  • 00:02:44
    or foreign ambassadors or consult okay
  • 00:02:46
    put that in your pocket we'll come back
  • 00:02:47
    to it later so as the case came before
  • 00:02:49
    The Supreme Court Chief Justice John
  • 00:02:50
    Marshall distilled the essence of it
  • 00:02:52
    into three questions number one does
  • 00:02:54
    Marbury have the legal right to his
  • 00:02:56
    commission number two if yes is the
  • 00:02:58
    court ordered RIT of Mand mamos the
  • 00:03:00
    proper legal means to get the commission
  • 00:03:02
    and number three if yes does the court
  • 00:03:05
    have the authority to Grant the RIT of
  • 00:03:07
    mandamos okay so now let's look at how
  • 00:03:08
    the court decided the case with respect
  • 00:03:10
    to the three questions the answer to
  • 00:03:12
    number one did Marbury have the legal
  • 00:03:14
    right to his commission the answer was
  • 00:03:16
    yes Congress established the new courts
  • 00:03:18
    and the judgeships and the president did
  • 00:03:20
    his constitutional duty to appoint
  • 00:03:21
    judges to them and the fact that some of
  • 00:03:23
    them were undelivered was just a
  • 00:03:25
    technicality everything on that count
  • 00:03:26
    was above board and perfectly legal okay
  • 00:03:29
    so if marber was legally entitled to his
  • 00:03:31
    commission then the answer to the second
  • 00:03:33
    question is the RIT of mandamos the
  • 00:03:35
    legal means to get it yes and at this
  • 00:03:37
    point Marberry is feeling pretty good
  • 00:03:39
    about himself like everything is going
  • 00:03:40
    in his favor and he's about to get the
  • 00:03:42
    Supreme Court to issue a RIT of mandamus
  • 00:03:44
    for his commission but regarding the
  • 00:03:46
    third question Marberry better get on
  • 00:03:47
    his disappointment pants because things
  • 00:03:49
    are about to take a turn and it's the
  • 00:03:51
    answer to this third question that makes
  • 00:03:53
    this case the most important Supreme
  • 00:03:55
    Court case in history so pay attention
  • 00:03:58
    and do not miss this the third question
  • 00:03:59
    was does the court have the authority to
  • 00:04:01
    Grant the RIT of mandamos and John
  • 00:04:03
    Marshall's answer to this question was
  • 00:04:06
    no let me explain if you were paying
  • 00:04:08
    attention earlier when we looked at
  • 00:04:09
    article 3 you might have noticed that it
  • 00:04:11
    says precisely nothing about the court
  • 00:04:13
    issuing rits of mandamos so why did
  • 00:04:15
    Marberry think the court could do so
  • 00:04:17
    well he thought so because the Judiciary
  • 00:04:18
    Act of 1789 which in addition to
  • 00:04:20
    establishing all the lower federal
  • 00:04:21
    courts also said in Article 13 that the
  • 00:04:24
    Supreme Court has authority to issue RIT
  • 00:04:26
    of mandamus in original jurisdiction
  • 00:04:28
    cases that is the the law so marber's
  • 00:04:30
    case is being heard before The Supreme
  • 00:04:32
    Court for the first time and that means
  • 00:04:35
    it's within original jurisdiction and
  • 00:04:37
    therefore according to the Judiciary Act
  • 00:04:39
    the court has the authority to issue the
  • 00:04:41
    Writ but John Marshall saddled his
  • 00:04:43
    judicial horse of power and did
  • 00:04:45
    something unbelievable he said that
  • 00:04:47
    article 13 of the Judiciary Act
  • 00:04:49
    conflicted with article 3 of The
  • 00:04:51
    Constitution remember article 3 gives
  • 00:04:53
    the court original jurisdiction over
  • 00:04:55
    cases involving States and ambassadors
  • 00:04:57
    but Marbury and Madison are neither
  • 00:04:59
    States nor ambassadors Marbury is a
  • 00:05:01
    judge and Madison is a cabinet secretary
  • 00:05:04
    so while the RIT would be legal under
  • 00:05:06
    the Judiciary Act because it in essence
  • 00:05:08
    expanded the scope of the Court's
  • 00:05:10
    original jurisdiction John Marshall said
  • 00:05:13
    that's not what the Constitution says
  • 00:05:15
    about the Court's Authority and
  • 00:05:16
    therefore Article 13 of the Judiciary
  • 00:05:18
    Act is unconstitutional and therefore
  • 00:05:20
    null and void so ultimately Marberry did
  • 00:05:23
    not get his commission so that brings us
  • 00:05:25
    to why this case matters when John
  • 00:05:27
    Marshall declared that law
  • 00:05:28
    unconstitutional he essentially invested
  • 00:05:30
    the Supreme Court with the power of
  • 00:05:32
    judicial review now Hamilton had written
  • 00:05:34
    about this in Federalist 78 but it
  • 00:05:36
    wasn't explicitly mentioned in the
  • 00:05:37
    Constitution however with this case the
  • 00:05:39
    judicial branch became the final
  • 00:05:41
    interpreter of the Constitution and took
  • 00:05:43
    up the mantle of striking down or
  • 00:05:45
    upholding laws passed by Congress based
  • 00:05:47
    on their constitutionality massive case
  • 00:05:50
    watch this video again if you didn't get
  • 00:05:51
    it all right thanks for watching click
  • 00:05:53
    right here to grab my review packet
  • 00:05:54
    which is going to help you get an A in
  • 00:05:55
    your class and a five on your exam in
  • 00:05:56
    May I've got videos on all the other
  • 00:05:58
    required cases right here and if you
  • 00:05:59
    want me to keep making these videos then
  • 00:06:01
    by all means subscribe and I shall oblig
  • 00:06:03
    himler out
Tags
  • Marbury v. Madison
  • Judicial Review
  • Supreme Court
  • John Marshall
  • Judiciary Act 1789
  • Constitutional Law
  • Federalists
  • Thomas Jefferson
  • John Adams
  • Writ of Mandamus