You are on page 1of 2

Sullivan and Feldman.

Please read pages 1-20

Supreme court is the final arbritor of the constituion. Supreme court ets to tsay what the constition means.

Judicial Review- The power of federal courts to void acts of congress in conflict with the constitution.
Writ of mandamus legal order compelling madison to show cause why he should not recieve.
Original jurisdiction -- the power to bring cases directly to the Supreme Court

The three questions

#1: Politcal act vs. Power/right of the president is not the subject of a right or a lawsuit.
Supreme Court says that some things we will not deal with like poltical questions. But here since
appointment has been made and confirmed Marbury does have a right.
Court makes a distinction between function al acts of president can be order to do these functional things.
Fedeal courts have jurisdiction over federal law, conistituion or treaties
# 3: Chief Justice went on to say that it was the particular responsibility of the courts to protect the rights
of individuals -- even against the president of the United States.
Chief Justice ruled that the Court could not grant the writ because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of
1789, which granted it the right to do so, was unconstitutional insofar as it extended to cases
of original jurisdiction.
Marshall is protecting the constition because it is the most pure form of the populations will unlike
congress who can pass statutes creatively and maybe not always at the will of the people. Marshall
When the statute is in conflict with the constitutio it is void. Marshall was therefore staking a broader
mandate then needed.
Article III, it applied only to cases "affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls" and to cases "in which the state shall be party."
Marshall can make his argument by:
1. Looking at the text
2. Making a structural Argument
3. Intent (federalist papers, contemporary writing)
Marshall used the hamilton federalist papers which seemed to suggest that courts are
intermediaries against the power of the legislature. Article 3 and Article 6
John Marshall argued that acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution are not law and therefore are non-binding to the courts, and
that the judiciary's first responsibility is always to uphold the Constitution. If two laws conflict, Marshall wrote, the court bears
responsibility for deciding which law applies in any given case. Thus, Marbury never received his job.

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee

Hunter -> VA Granted the land
Martin -> US Treaty (Supreme Court)

State court can make decisons on federal law/federal questions as long as there are some state issues
Federal Court have jurisdiction because the case deals with a treaty
Since the SC let is go through the state courts they are the final word.
State court judges are also not in as good of position to have an independent decision on these issues.

How did the case arrive here, arguemts for both sides
Cooper v. Aaron
US Supreme Court The supreme court in annoyed.
State offical that continually violated cositutional law can be held to damages and therefore this would get very costly
for the states. Basically if the state legislature continues to do this there will be damages.
Does this expand the power of Supreme Court from Marbury? The argument is that this case expands their power and
makes these court decison cases binding on non-parties to the case.
Note Case
Dickerson v. United States and Miranda v.s Congress
Legislative act cannot be inconsisten with a constitutional. Scalia was saying that this violates an interpretation of the
constitution. It is inconsitent with what we already said so therefore it is invalid.
Amending the constituion