Marbury vs. Madison - "The case of midnight Judges" (1803) - Established judicial review (wasn't established before, everyone agreed with the power after the usage) - Supreme court has the power to decide if the act made by congress or the president is constitutional or not, and overturn them Election of 1800 John Adams (incumbent, federalist) vs Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-republican) Thomas Jefferson won (1st peaceful transfer of power) > Democratic-republicans had power in president and Congress, so John Adam wanted to control the judicial branch by appointing federal judges to different courts - 16 new federal court of appeals judges, 42 justice of the peace, and diminishing the size of supreme court from 6 to 5 (since one is retiring, deprives Jefferson's opportunity to appoint a new justice) - William Marbury was one of the appointed for justice of the peace in DC - John Marshall (Longest chief Justice, 1801 - 1835) didn't have a chance to deliver the commission (too last min) - it was up to James Madison (the secretary of state for Jefferson) to deliver them - Jefferson Admin didn't want to deliver it - Marbury wants his commission, so he sues Madison Actual case: - Main concern: Can this case go straight to the supreme court? - Marshal says no since according to article 3 of the constitution, this case can't be in supreme court's jurisdiction. - It can be filed somewhere else then appeal to supreme court, but not directly to S-court - congress passed law in 1789 saying that the supreme court can hear cases like this - conflicts with article 3, this law is declared unconstitutional - judicial review is established with Marshall checking on laws Thank you Kim.
A judge in general or the supreme court justices? Because if you mean the supreme court their role is only to decide if something is constitutional, they aren't supposed to follow laws that's why they have the power of judicial review.
Juries are supposed to make decisions based upon law. However juries, like Supreme Court Justices, are also able to determine if the application of the law follows the Constitution when rendering a verdict. By the time a case reaches the Supreme Court, there has been some aspect of disagreement as to whether and to what degree the law involved violates the Constitution.
@@jy9291uries are not allowed to interpret the law , the judge does that . Juries are the fact finder - did the state prove its case ? I almost wrote - is the defendant guilty ? That is incorrect but a common view people have of criminal law precedings. Also a judge can set aside a guilty verdict if the law does not support that but a judge can never set aside a not guilty plea. However a judge can declare a mistrial if they believe the jury is doing a nullification .
Thank you for having a 1st language English speaker do this. It's shocking to find so many videos having people speaking in their 2nd language with marbles in their mouths doing the narration.
They ..interpret … the constitution, major difference. These judges are unelected and unaccountable. The fact that only the president can select these individuals and this case made the SCOTUS , political. And that redounds to us this day.
This case was wrongly decided because the Judiciary Act of 1789, Section 13 didn't conflict with the constitution at all. It said that the writ of mandamus could only be issued when the court has Appellate Jurisdiction, meaning it has to go through a series of appeals before it reaches the Supreme Court. But this case didn't go through a series of appeals, it was brought directly to the Supreme Court so there was no need to rule Section 13 of the Judiciary Act unconstitutional.
Marbury vs. Madison - "The case of midnight Judges" (1803)
- Established judicial review (wasn't established before, everyone agreed with the power after the usage)
- Supreme court has the power to decide if the act made by congress or the president is constitutional or not, and overturn them
Election of 1800
John Adams (incumbent, federalist) vs Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-republican)
Thomas Jefferson won (1st peaceful transfer of power)
> Democratic-republicans had power in president and Congress, so John Adam wanted to control the judicial branch by appointing federal judges to different courts
- 16 new federal court of appeals judges, 42 justice of the peace, and diminishing the size of supreme court from 6 to 5 (since one is retiring, deprives Jefferson's opportunity to appoint a new justice)
- William Marbury was one of the appointed for justice of the peace in DC
- John Marshall (Longest chief Justice, 1801 - 1835) didn't have a chance to deliver the commission (too last min)
- it was up to James Madison (the secretary of state for Jefferson) to deliver them
- Jefferson Admin didn't want to deliver it
- Marbury wants his commission, so he sues Madison
Actual case:
- Main concern: Can this case go straight to the supreme court?
- Marshal says no since according to article 3 of the constitution, this case can't be in supreme court's jurisdiction.
- It can be filed somewhere else then appeal to supreme court, but not directly to S-court
- congress passed law in 1789 saying that the supreme court can hear cases like this
- conflicts with article 3, this law is declared unconstitutional
- judicial review is established with Marshall checking on laws
Thank you Kim.
Thanks 🙋🙋
Well explained 👍
Misleading towards the end there.
Judicial Review was establish in the Constitution. It's included in the main articles...
love u, kim, views down but my grades are up‼️‼️
Civics needs to be made mandatory curriculum in all public schools. As it was taught 200+ years ago.
This video helped so much!
No it didn’t lol
@@alexcofel6260 yes it did
I love this so much
I love Khan Academy!!! :)
I learned something
nice vid bro
Very helpful
I’m confused
Watch some other video first then comeback to this one!
me either
same
crash course has a good video on it
I THOUGHT I WAS THE ONLY ONE
Here's a question: When was the last time a judge actually made a decision based on the law?
All the time lmao.
Only all the time?
A judge in general or the supreme court justices? Because if you mean the supreme court their role is only to decide if something is constitutional, they aren't supposed to follow laws that's why they have the power of judicial review.
Juries are supposed to make decisions based upon law. However juries, like Supreme Court Justices, are also able to determine if the application of the law follows the Constitution when rendering a verdict.
By the time a case reaches the Supreme Court, there has been some aspect of disagreement as to whether and to what degree the law involved violates the Constitution.
@@jy9291uries are not allowed to interpret the law , the judge does that . Juries are the fact finder - did the state prove its case ? I almost wrote - is the defendant guilty ? That is incorrect but a common view people have of criminal law precedings. Also a judge can set aside a guilty verdict if the law does not support that but a judge can never set aside a not guilty plea. However a judge can declare a mistrial if they believe the jury is doing a nullification .
Thank you!!!
what is the comission?
Vishnu Murthy the document that adams signed and marshall sealed to “commission” marbury as a justice
2:00
Cool
Thank you for having a 1st language English speaker do this. It's shocking to find so many videos having people speaking in their 2nd language with marbles in their mouths doing the narration.
Confused
Judicial Review! The Supreme Court decides what is or is not Constitutional. Neither the Congress nor the President the Law i.e. the Constitution!
They ..interpret … the constitution, major difference. These judges are unelected and unaccountable. The fact that only the president can select these individuals and this case made the SCOTUS , political. And that redounds to us this day.
Sounds like today's leadership and madness 😣😈😢😦😇
Hi
I know you
This case was wrongly decided because the Judiciary Act of 1789, Section 13 didn't conflict with the constitution at all. It said that the writ of mandamus could only be issued when the court has Appellate Jurisdiction, meaning it has to go through a series of appeals before it reaches the Supreme Court. But this case didn't go through a series of appeals, it was brought directly to the Supreme Court so there was no need to rule Section 13 of the Judiciary Act unconstitutional.
dum
SCOTUS had appellate jurisdiction and could therefore issue writs of mandamus, but the case wasn’t brought by appeal. This distinction is important
@@peterthegreat996 Why?
@@actanonverba3041wrong post . I was wrong .