This is the Most Important Decision every made by the US SUPREME COURT, it Judged that the CONSTITUTION was the SUPREME LAW of THE LAND and that any LAW, CODE or POLICY that Contradicted the CONSTITUTION was not a VALID LAW
I loved this video. It is the first time that I understand in detail the whole history behind Marbury v.Madison as well as the real controversy and its amazing ramifications. Food for thought for me. Thanks a lot for uploading this video!
review i guess . different judge . file complaints . doj if they do anything .. can file on cops to feds .. then no one over feds . hope for gapped people .. not much left today . more left with few good cases and man defense , witnesses and property . separate from ocnstituion then hold them to it .
I firmly believe that State Legislatures should have the ability to void a Supreme Court decision similar to an Amendment process within a two year period of the Majority Opinion by the Court. Also the process should apply to Federal Laws passed by Congress.
The entire series with E. G. Marshall narrating the cases are great adjunct studies for students seriously interested in constitutional law. The entire series covers the following cases: Titles in this Series Marbury v. Madison Who determines what the Constitution means: the Supreme Court, Congress, or the President? This 1803 case established the judiciary’s authority to interpret the Constitution. Marshall’s insistence on the principle of "judicial review" of acts of Congress brought him into conflict with President Thomas Jefferson, but established the court’s responsibility. McCulloch v. Maryland How has the Supreme Court reinforced the Constitution’s requirement for a strong federal government? Can the states interfere with or tax the legitimate activities of the federal government? This unpopular decision dealt a blow to states’ rights by reaffirming the validity of the federal government to charter a bank (in Maryland) and striking down the state’s attempts to tax this federally established institution. Gibbons v. Ogden Does the Constitution give the states or Congress the right to regulate commerce? In 1818, a steamboat was ordered to leave New York waters because it had no license to operate within the state. In this case, the Marshall court ruled that the federal government did have the power to regulate commerce and in so doing laid the foundation for a unified American common market. United States v. Aaron Burr: The Trial of Aaron Burr, part 1 The only case in this series not decided by the Supreme Court, this John Marshall decision was handed down in Federal Circuit Court in Richmond, Virginia, in 1807. Once again, it placed the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in direct opposition to President Thomas Jefferson. Former Vice President Aaron Burr was being tried for treason; although the evidence against Burr was tenuous, Jefferson, in an address to Congress, had declared him guilty. The three-way struggle between Marshall, Jefferson, and Burr produced dramatic results: a precedent was set for limiting executive privilege; the right of unpopular defendants to a fair trial was established; the constitutional definition of treason was upheld; and Chief Justice Marshall was hanged in effigy. The Trial of Aaron Burr, part 2 The Trial of Aaron Burr, part 3 The conclusion.
I remember watching this in eighth grade as it was the only youtube video on this subject (as compared to today, where there are shorter videos with better explanation), but this one really did help me back then, more so than what the confusing text book explained!
Anybody else here because of your history or government class? Btw These comments are grade A comedy, really you guys are hilarious. And unfortunately, this is probably the only laughing I'll be doing for the next 30mins or so. Am going in, Wish me luck.
Partisan Jefferson was not his best side. But I say that knowing that Hamilton and his Federalists were guilty of the same venality. Politics infects everything, even the Founders. ‘‘Twas always thus.
John Marshall was a smart chief justice. Probably one of the best we ever had. He understood that a robust nation needed to have a constitution with subject matter jurisdiction above any other law. The Constitution is the supreme law and will always be in America.
@@bizzyb7th thank you for clarifying. if anybody wants to learn watch Carl Miller videos. he is without a doubt a true patriot and a loss to this country died 2014 God bless his family.
This is an incredible dramaization, though I'm not sure of the hairstyles being entirely accurate, at least from what I've seen from portraits. Oh, well:) Fantastic anyway:) Thanks for posting!
It's not equal law when the government doesn't go by the constitution its the laws of the land we the people's created the document to have the people saprame and hold the power to protect my rights and all American man and women not the government and states agencies they have no right because they have codes and staues they are policeys not true law
I have to say. The commentary is brilliant. The entertainment value is not. The factual statements are excellent. The ability to bore via monotone and lack of expression is epic
Larrydirtybird : The actor who played T. Jefferson also played one of the original signers of the Declaration of Independence John Witherspoon in the 1972 Mucical movie "1776".
@@KenCostlow The actor Grandon Rhodes did a great job portraying Chief Justice John Marshall. However, he was much older than the real John Marshall would have been in 1803. Grandon Rhodes looks to be in his 60's while John Marshall was only 47 when Marbury v Madison was being decided.
a major landmark US decision. New Zealand courts have no ability to review and strike down unconstitutional legislation, obviously because there is no written constition here. Some have argued there exists a residual inherent, or assumed common law jurisdiction to do so. However, this argument remains purely academic. Perhaps one day, if the NZ parliament were to enact extreme legislation, a court of superior jurisdiction might be forced to rule on it.
If they repealed the Circuit Court act, could Congress have dealt with this problem by simply repealing the Judiciary Act? Or at least the portion of it that Marbury had depended on? If they had repealed that legislation, would that have caused Marshall to dismiss the case on that ground? If it had been repealed, then Marshall wouldn't have been able to strike it down, and that would have caused this story to end very differently. Am I making sense?
No, the Judiciary Act of 1789 which gave the power to the courts to hear a case on and issue such a commision flys in the face of article 3 section 2 of the constitution as the Supreme court only has original jurisdiction over cases involving embassadors and what not. Therefore, because the Judiciary Act is at odds with the language of the constitution, Marshall was right to stike the act as UNCONSTITUTIONAL
This is fiction. He said John Marshall said that "the constitution itself intends for the federal judiciary to make that decision. Federalist No. 78 is usually cited. Alexander Hamilton allegedly wrote it using the name Publius, but that paper was an article written for and published by two New York papers. It's the equivalent of an opinion piece in the New York Times, and it was written anonymously! We know the constitution did NOT intend for the judiciary to make the decision. On October 24, 1787, a month after they approved the language of the constitution which yet had to be certified, James Madison wrote and told Jefferson that they discussed this power (judicial review) but they decided against it. He said if they wanted to give it to the judiciary, they would have included the supreme court on the front end before a bill becomes law, and not after someone suffers an injury. Furthermore, he made the point that people wouldn't necessarily be able to afford or have the opportunity to get their case to the SCOTUS. Jefferson wrote back on December 20th stating he wished the court was included on the front end, and this was six months before ratification, so it was not an oversight. They purposely left it out, and everyone was aware. The reason why Hamilton wrote Federalist 78 under an assumed name is because he was at the convention and would have known better. Madison and others would have called him out on it. There's a lot more to the story, but the long and the short of it is that the federalists wanted to consolidate their power, and judicial review is a powerful tool for this (e.g. Citizens United v. FEC. Susan L. Bloch did a great job in her peer reviewed article about the "Marbury Mystery" proving Marbury would have known better than to file his claim with the SCOTUS. If he intended to lose, the obvious purpose of the charade was to give the court the power Alexander Hamilton and others were not able to procure during the constitutional convention. According to the New York Times in 1987, the US Attorney General understood what I am saying, and he recommended that any state currently not in a lawsuit ignore the Supreme Court's use of judicial review going forward because it is not legally binding. The court simply has no right to legislate from the bench as all legislative power belongs to the legislature (Art. I § 1). Remember, Judicial Review gave us the Dred Scott decision. Citizens United can be resolved just by the legislature ignoring it. In fact, they are sworn to defend the constitution, so allowing themselves and the SCOTUS to circumvent the constitution is treason in my opinion. Jefferson's letter to Judge Spencer Roane in 1819 and to Justice William Johnson in 1823 are also good letter to read. It is so obvious judicial review is illegal, but the powers that be act as if it is just. They even gave themselves this power by striking down Congress' Judiciary Act of 1789 because Marshall said they fundamentally changed the constitution with a simple vote bypassing the constitutional amendment process. By granting themselves judicial review in the same breath, they also fundamentally changed the constitution which makes them hypocrites. Worse, unlike congress who are many and accountable to the people, the Marshall Court only had six justices during Marbury as two recused themselves probably because they didn't want to be involved in this nonsense. You have to ask yourself, Why do they continue to lie to us about it?
Forum and Brim : Two Justices didn't recuse themselves from this case because their were only 6 members of the US Supreme Court at that time when the case of Marbury v Madison was first heard in 1803. The Supreme Court wouldn't get its fixed number of 9 members for another 66 years until 1869.
No it was done b4 it even happened they predicted the future and acted it all out first. In fake life then it happened in real life. Does that answer your question. Lol 😆
That means all laws the government has passed on local, state an federal 2 infringe upon pur rights is null invoid not only that but all government agencies, including the iRs an Fèdérál reSèrve along with all police departments as well!! Oh an dont 4get the 16th Amendment wich gives local, state and federal gpvernments 2 tax us with out limitations!! Also all Executive 0rders r null invoid as well!!
Tendo Kanyike : If you're talking about the man who first starts speaking at the beginning of this video and continues to narrates throughout the video then it's NOT Bill O'Reilly. That man's name was E. G. Marshall . He was a famous American actor. This video first appeared in 1977. The actor would live on for another 21 years until his death in 1998.
The supreme court didn't have jurisdiction to see the case. Wich means, they didnt have the power to decide the case. Although they thought that the commisions were rightfully theirs the couldnt do anything about it.
@Todd Olson But the case was actually heard and debated in February of 1803 so Chief Justice John Marshall would have been 47 years old going on 48 later in September of that same year.
One of the problems I have with justice Marshall’s declaration of SCOTUS supreme interpretation of the Constitution is his statement - ‘Suppose that Congress laid a duty on an article exported from a state or passed a bill of attainder or an ex post facto law or provided that treason should be proved by the testimony of one witness. Would the courts enforce such a law in the face of an express constitutional provision? They would not, because their oath required by the Constitution obligated them to support the Constitution and to enforce such laws would violate the oath.’ It appears that Marshall is a bit confused about the difference between a supreme jurist and a Supreme Being! He seems to be implying that SCOTUS justices are somehow divinely gifted with a Christ-like, uber-righteous and apotheosized inability to EVER VIOLAT THEIR OATH! Are you freakin kidding me?! I guess donning a black robe in D.C. somehow dissolves the human nature and re-integrates it into a wholly holy state.
this video might be a good video, by my government class is doing a video guide for it and it is sooooooooooooooooooooooooo boreing. oh and 2nd from Mr. h's 2nd period government class
Lo que nadie sabe es que tanto Marbury como Madison eran gays, y a su vez, Madison estaba enamorado de Jefferson. Esto fue lo que desato el conflicto. El caso en verdad deberia llamarse "Marbury y Madison por siempre", for ever... como oportunamente lo dijo Adams.
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson's response to the Marbury decision is worth noting, especially in light of the fact that Supreme court decisions fall almost 80% along political lines in the last thirty years. It may be legally correct that the Section 13 was in conflict with the Constitution, but where in the Constitution does it state the Supreme court has the power to make that declaration and decision? The Supreme Court gave themselves power above the other two branches of Government while the Constitution clearly states co_equal power. A legal paradox. My only solution would be an agreement of Congress and the Executive to such a Supreme court ruling.
Linda Sidell It is not truly a paradox. Congress makes the law, the executive enforces the law and the court decides if the law is legal (Constitutional). Furthermore the court can not act unless a case is brought to it by an injured party after they go though the lower courts first. Also the court does not have the ability to enforce its rulings, that is the job of the executive branch and only congress can force the executive to act if it doesn't wish to. In fact the Warren court was very concerned that it ruling on Brown v The board of Education would not be enforced by President Eisenhower.
Ryan Otteros but if you look at cases over the past few years the Supreme Court is spilt by ideology. The left side believes that the court can “interpret” the Constitution or the law to their own ideology. The Right adheres to the idea that what is written and the thoughts behind those that wrote it. When certain justices think themselves the absolute arbiters we have Tyranny. And when Congress abdicates it Constitutional authority to impeach Justices because of political ideology. The Rule of Law disappears. The Supreme Court has NO authority to “reinterpret” plan language of the Constitution or to disregard words it doesn’t like.
Who is to say what’s the framers intent was?? Well I’m going to assume it was the framers themselves. This is, in a certain context, the most important supreme court case so far. Has not been overturned one time in the pages of challenges it has had. I believe they’re making me the wrong one. The main focus should be that “any law, repugnant to the constitution is a non-law unenforceable and without merit“… For people way in the back, this case has had hundreds of challengers and it is still undefeated in it’s stance.
Actually, Chief Justice Marshall said Yes. His ruling regarding the constitutionality was correct, However: After the case, he urged Jefferson to grant them, but the President decided to be a douche about it and continued to ignore them. You failed to address the comment entirely.
This is the Most Important Decision every made by the US SUPREME COURT, it Judged that the CONSTITUTION was the SUPREME LAW of THE LAND
and that any LAW, CODE or POLICY that Contradicted the CONSTITUTION was not a VALID LAW
including the right to travel freely.
more importantly, it established the concept of judicial review
Tell that to a felon that can't hunt anymore, that had nothing to do with a firearm
@@AdamKhan-mb4mu I'm pretty sure the comment you responded to was pretty much what judicial review is, or the fundamentals of it.
@@TheAwesomeTolga198 Some like to invent meaning and add significance where none is needed.
I loved this video. It is the first time that I understand in detail the whole history behind Marbury v.Madison as well as the real controversy and its amazing ramifications. Food for thought for me. Thanks a lot for uploading this video!
But when that same Supreme Court violates plain language of the Constitution, who can over rule them?
review i guess . different judge . file complaints . doj if they do anything .. can file on cops to feds .. then no one over feds . hope for gapped people .. not much left today . more left with few good cases and man defense , witnesses and property . separate from ocnstituion then hold them to it .
Angl0sax0nknight now your just asking for too much lol
Knowledge
The Military 😬 knee jerk response
I firmly believe that State Legislatures should have the ability to void a Supreme Court decision similar to an Amendment process within a two year period of the Majority Opinion by the Court. Also the process should apply to Federal Laws passed by Congress.
The entire series with E. G. Marshall narrating the cases are great adjunct studies for students seriously interested in constitutional law. The entire series covers the following cases:
Titles in this Series
Marbury v. Madison
Who determines what the Constitution means: the Supreme Court, Congress, or the President? This 1803 case established the judiciary’s authority to interpret the Constitution. Marshall’s insistence on the principle of "judicial review" of acts of Congress brought him into conflict with President Thomas Jefferson, but established the court’s responsibility.
McCulloch v. Maryland
How has the Supreme Court reinforced the Constitution’s requirement for a strong federal government? Can the states interfere with or tax the legitimate activities of the federal government? This unpopular decision dealt a blow to states’ rights by reaffirming the validity of the federal government to charter a bank (in Maryland) and striking down the state’s attempts to tax this federally established institution.
Gibbons v. Ogden
Does the Constitution give the states or Congress the right to regulate commerce? In 1818, a steamboat was ordered to leave New York waters because it had no license to operate within the state. In this case, the Marshall court ruled that the federal government did have the power to regulate commerce and in so doing laid the foundation for a unified American common market.
United States v. Aaron Burr: The Trial of Aaron Burr, part 1
The only case in this series not decided by the Supreme Court, this John Marshall decision was handed down in Federal Circuit Court in Richmond, Virginia, in 1807. Once again, it placed the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in direct opposition to President Thomas Jefferson. Former Vice President Aaron Burr was being tried for treason; although the evidence against Burr was tenuous, Jefferson, in an address to Congress, had declared him guilty. The three-way struggle between Marshall, Jefferson, and Burr produced dramatic results: a precedent was set for limiting executive privilege; the right of unpopular defendants to a fair trial was established; the constitutional definition of treason was upheld; and Chief Justice Marshall was hanged in effigy.
The Trial of Aaron Burr, part 2
The Trial of Aaron Burr, part 3
The conclusion.
I remember watching this in eighth grade as it was the only youtube video on this subject (as compared to today, where there are shorter videos with better explanation), but this one really did help me back then, more so than what the confusing text book explained!
Thanks for posting. My high school teacher showed us this 20 years ago and I've been trying to find it for my students
Anybody else here because of your history or government class? Btw These comments are grade A comedy, really you guys are hilarious. And unfortunately, this is probably the only laughing I'll be doing for the next 30mins or so. Am going in, Wish me luck.
Good Luck, Do Justice!
Sarah Robinson How'd you do?
Sarah Robinson a
Watching to get an idea of cases in Law School.
watching this in history class yooo
I'm here now to remind myself how noble our Supreme Court used to be.
How noble it was to treat black people like trash after stealing their land and enslaving them for hundreds of years….
Putting this at 1.25 speed makes it slightly more tolerable
that's how i watch all non-music videos now. one of the best innovations ever.
Haha I'm up to 2x. I wish I could do 3x so it's only ten minutes, but I guess one can only dream -__-
@@bope5706 there is plugins for that.
Thanks
Partisan Jefferson was not his best side. But I say that knowing that Hamilton and his Federalists were guilty of the same venality. Politics infects everything, even the Founders. ‘‘Twas always thus.
Pretty chill study source for visual learning students. Love the Vintage of it all, actually takes you to the 1800's :D
Big help for us to understand the beginning of judicial review
John Marshall was a smart chief justice. Probably one of the best we ever had. He understood that a robust nation needed to have a constitution with subject matter jurisdiction above any other law. The Constitution is the supreme law and will always be in America.
He was a Jew they didn't tell you that!!! Praise Jesus 🙏🏻
been watching it at 1.5 speed and its still easy to listen to, only their voices are a little bit higher pitched
Know your Constitution; watch the Class by the late Bill Miller. This was an awesome presentation.
Carl Miller*
@@bizzyb7th thank you for clarifying. if anybody wants to learn watch Carl Miller videos. he is without a doubt a true patriot and a loss to this country died 2014 God bless his family.
@@7FREEDOMmedia Lost another Legendary teacher in our own time !!!
Thank you for this!
On an unrelated note, you call tell that the fellow at 21:54 is a seasoned actor and is flexing on everybody on set.
spolier alert: case has nothing to do with marbury, its all about the judiciary act :0
this is great!!! those in the legal profession should view this video.
how do I find , similar , videos on this page? I can't find a folder of court interpretations
Phenomenal. I wish every historical event were depicted in this manner - calm, cool, and rational.
"Is it madness Mr. President?"
"Madness? THIS IS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH!"
This is an interesting look into the supreme court acted at the beginning of our country.
This is an incredible dramaization, though I'm not sure of the hairstyles being entirely accurate, at least from what I've seen from portraits. Oh, well:) Fantastic anyway:) Thanks for posting!
yay for this vid! it has officially helped me with the poli sci test i have to take tomorrow morning.
They looked so much better in my head...
History that i have read, Madison Jr couldn’t produced them if he wanted to. The reason is because Thomas Jefferson himself tore them up.
Espectacular, me alegre mucho cuando lo encontre en youtube, es excelente caso!
It's not equal law when the government doesn't go by the constitution its the laws of the land we the people's created the document to have the people saprame and hold the power to protect my rights and all American man and women not the government and states agencies they have no right because they have codes and staues they are policeys not true law
I have to say. The commentary is brilliant. The entertainment value is not. The factual statements are excellent. The ability to bore via monotone and lack of expression is epic
You expected a car chase? I agree it is not very dramatic, but it is actually well done.
Janet Dove welcome to freshman us history
Lençóis Maranhenses amo dimais este paraíso surreal.
The interesting is that I am brazilian and I need to study this case too. :P
Luiza Valente Do you mean to say that you actually live in Brazil 🇧🇷?
The man who played Thomas Jefferson played the Governor in the 1980s sitcom "Benson," starring Robert Guillaume. Just sayin'.
Larrydirtybird : The actor who played T. Jefferson also played one of the original signers of the Declaration of Independence John Witherspoon in the 1972 Mucical movie "1776".
James Noble. And John Marshall is played by character actor Grandon Rhodes, who also played a judge on Perry Mason.
@@KenCostlow The actor Grandon Rhodes did a great job portraying Chief Justice John Marshall. However, he was much older than the real John Marshall would have been in 1803. Grandon Rhodes looks to be in his 60's while John Marshall was only 47 when Marbury v Madison was being decided.
I told my wife the same thing that's the governor in the sitcom Benson. God bless
a major landmark US decision.
New Zealand courts have no ability to review and strike down unconstitutional legislation, obviously because there is no written constition here.
Some have argued there exists a residual inherent, or assumed common law jurisdiction to do so. However, this argument remains purely academic.
Perhaps one day, if the NZ parliament were to enact extreme legislation, a court of superior jurisdiction might be forced to rule on it.
If they repealed the Circuit Court act, could Congress have dealt with this problem by simply repealing the Judiciary Act? Or at least the portion of it that Marbury had depended on? If they had repealed that legislation, would that have caused Marshall to dismiss the case on that ground? If it had been repealed, then Marshall wouldn't have been able to strike it down, and that would have caused this story to end very differently. Am I making sense?
no lo tienen castellano?
No, the Judiciary Act of 1789 which gave the power to the courts to hear a case on and issue such a commision flys in the face of article 3 section 2 of the constitution as the Supreme court only has original jurisdiction over cases involving embassadors and what not. Therefore, because the Judiciary Act is at odds with the language of the constitution, Marshall was right to stike the act as UNCONSTITUTIONAL
I can't tell if they're making fun of Jefferson or if the actor is just hamming it up.
What year was this produced?
1977
@@larrymccammon3275 mad decent
This is fiction. He said John Marshall said that "the constitution itself intends for the federal judiciary to make that decision. Federalist No. 78 is usually cited. Alexander Hamilton allegedly wrote it using the name Publius, but that paper was an article written for and published by two New York papers. It's the equivalent of an opinion piece in the New York Times, and it was written anonymously!
We know the constitution did NOT intend for the judiciary to make the decision. On October 24, 1787, a month after they approved the language of the constitution which yet had to be certified, James Madison wrote and told Jefferson that they discussed this power (judicial review) but they decided against it. He said if they wanted to give it to the judiciary, they would have included the supreme court on the front end before a bill becomes law, and not after someone suffers an injury. Furthermore, he made the point that people wouldn't necessarily be able to afford or have the opportunity to get their case to the SCOTUS.
Jefferson wrote back on December 20th stating he wished the court was included on the front end, and this was six months before ratification, so it was not an oversight. They purposely left it out, and everyone was aware. The reason why Hamilton wrote Federalist 78 under an assumed name is because he was at the convention and would have known better. Madison and others would have called him out on it.
There's a lot more to the story, but the long and the short of it is that the federalists wanted to consolidate their power, and judicial review is a powerful tool for this (e.g. Citizens United v. FEC. Susan L. Bloch did a great job in her peer reviewed article about the "Marbury Mystery" proving Marbury would have known better than to file his claim with the SCOTUS. If he intended to lose, the obvious purpose of the charade was to give the court the power Alexander Hamilton and others were not able to procure during the constitutional convention.
According to the New York Times in 1987, the US Attorney General understood what I am saying, and he recommended that any state currently not in a lawsuit ignore the Supreme Court's use of judicial review going forward because it is not legally binding. The court simply has no right to legislate from the bench as all legislative power belongs to the legislature (Art. I § 1).
Remember, Judicial Review gave us the Dred Scott decision. Citizens United can be resolved just by the legislature ignoring it. In fact, they are sworn to defend the constitution, so allowing themselves and the SCOTUS to circumvent the constitution is treason in my opinion.
Jefferson's letter to Judge Spencer Roane in 1819 and to Justice William Johnson in 1823 are also good letter to read.
It is so obvious judicial review is illegal, but the powers that be act as if it is just. They even gave themselves this power by striking down Congress' Judiciary Act of 1789 because Marshall said they fundamentally changed the constitution with a simple vote bypassing the constitutional amendment process. By granting themselves judicial review in the same breath, they also fundamentally changed the constitution which makes them hypocrites. Worse, unlike congress who are many and accountable to the people, the Marshall Court only had six justices during Marbury as two recused themselves probably because they didn't want to be involved in this nonsense.
You have to ask yourself, Why do they continue to lie to us about it?
Forum and Brim interesting
Forum and Brim : Two Justices didn't recuse themselves from this case because their were only 6 members of the US Supreme Court at that time when the case of Marbury v Madison was first heard in 1803. The Supreme Court wouldn't get its fixed number of 9 members for another 66 years until 1869.
Did he just say that the "Constitution" soforth being COMMANDEERED by the judiciary. ...WOW. using this opportunity to do so.
Nice sharing stay connected
Who had to watch this for DCD
May God bless our republic
Was this film created just after Marbury v Madison was decided?
No, it was filmed live
No it was done b4 it even happened they predicted the future and acted it all out first. In fake life then it happened in real life. Does that answer your question. Lol 😆
I would say Marbury vs Madison stands solid even in these times of scuffles and plaintiffs
Any law students ?
yay poli sci classes! videos like these really are amazing for that purpose... I'm doing the same thing right now, only mine's in about 3 hours!
That means all laws the government has passed on local, state an federal 2 infringe upon pur rights is null invoid not only that but all government agencies, including the iRs an Fèdérál reSèrve along with all police departments as well!! Oh an dont 4get the 16th Amendment wich gives local, state and federal gpvernments 2 tax us with out limitations!! Also all Executive 0rders r null invoid as well!!
Oh shit I thought the speaker was Bill oreily
Tendo Kanyike : If you're talking about the man who first starts speaking at the beginning of this video and continues to narrates throughout the video then it's NOT Bill O'Reilly. That man's name was E. G. Marshall . He was a famous American actor. This video first appeared in 1977. The actor would live on for another 21 years until his death in 1998.
Wait wait wait . Wait a minute! Since the foundation of this what , now?
I think the justices should have got their commissions
am i the only one watching this to take notes on my social studies?
Plz help if you got the notes
The supreme court didn't have jurisdiction to see the case. Wich means, they didnt have the power to decide the case. Although they thought that the commisions were rightfully theirs the couldnt do anything about it.
1st from Mr. H's 2nd period Government class
Marshall would be in his late 40s here, this guy is in his 60s or 70s.
JB24, Yup. Forty six in 1801. To be a critic is tough business.
@Todd Olson But the case was actually heard and debated in February of 1803 so Chief Justice John Marshall would have been 47 years old going on 48 later in September of that same year.
I recognize some famous faces.
Here from Mr. Lashomb...
I second ur comment, it may have it's faults but it's still the best system till this day.
27:50.
One of the problems I have with justice Marshall’s declaration of SCOTUS supreme interpretation of the Constitution is his statement -
‘Suppose that Congress laid a duty on an article exported from a state or passed a bill of attainder or an ex post facto law or provided that treason should be proved by the testimony of one witness. Would the courts enforce such a law in the face of an express constitutional provision? They would not, because their oath required by the Constitution obligated them to support the Constitution and to enforce such laws would violate the oath.’
It appears that Marshall is a bit confused about the difference between a supreme jurist and a Supreme Being!
He seems to be implying that SCOTUS justices are somehow divinely gifted with a Christ-like, uber-righteous and apotheosized inability to EVER VIOLAT THEIR OATH!
Are you freakin kidding me?!
I guess donning a black robe in D.C. somehow dissolves the human nature and re-integrates it into a wholly holy state.
this video might be a good video, by my government class is doing a video guide for it and it is sooooooooooooooooooooooooo boreing. oh and 2nd from Mr. h's 2nd period government class
The governor on Benson.
i geuss it informational for class
Lo que nadie sabe es que tanto Marbury como Madison eran gays, y a su vez, Madison estaba enamorado de Jefferson. Esto fue lo que desato el conflicto. El caso en verdad deberia llamarse "Marbury y Madison por siempre", for ever... como oportunamente lo dijo Adams.
Marshall is pretty awesome lol
bounds
Hi, Section A
when my gov prof assigned this i thought it was 10 minutes long, max. apparently I've been had
go james!
Who else is here in 2025?
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." Thomas Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson's response to the Marbury decision is worth noting, especially in light of the fact that Supreme court decisions fall almost 80% along political lines in the last thirty years. It may be legally correct that the Section 13 was in conflict with the Constitution, but where in the Constitution does it state the Supreme court has the power to make that declaration and decision? The Supreme Court gave themselves power above the other two branches of Government while the Constitution clearly states co_equal power. A legal paradox. My only solution would be an agreement of Congress and the Executive to such a Supreme court ruling.
+Linda Sidell And your solution did occur...they agreed and enforced the court's ruling..problem solved.
Linda Sidell It is not truly a paradox. Congress makes the law, the executive enforces the law and the court decides if the law is legal (Constitutional). Furthermore the court can not act unless a case is brought to it by an injured party after they go though the lower courts first. Also the court does not have the ability to enforce its rulings, that is the job of the executive branch and only congress can force the executive to act if it doesn't wish to. In fact the Warren court was very concerned that it ruling on Brown v The board of Education would not be enforced by President Eisenhower.
Ryan Otteros but if you look at cases over the past few years the Supreme Court is spilt by ideology. The left side believes that the court can “interpret” the Constitution or the law to their own ideology. The Right adheres to the idea that what is written and the thoughts behind those that wrote it. When certain justices think themselves the absolute arbiters we have Tyranny. And when Congress abdicates it Constitutional authority to impeach Justices because of political ideology. The Rule of Law disappears. The Supreme Court has NO authority to “reinterpret” plan language of the Constitution or to disregard words it doesn’t like.
Who is to say what’s the framers intent was?? Well I’m going to assume it was the framers themselves. This is, in a certain context, the most important supreme court case so far. Has not been overturned one time in the pages of challenges it has had. I believe they’re making me the wrong one. The main focus should be that “any law, repugnant to the constitution is a non-law unenforceable and without merit“… For people way in the back, this case has had hundreds of challengers and it is still undefeated in it’s stance.
hi garret
Anyone here because of political science class? lol
The acting is like a high school play! Yet it is well intentioned and thorough. I think it was made in the sixties.
They're better than most common actors of the modern age.
White Jennifer Robinson Amy Hall Christopher
Actually, Chief Justice Marshall said Yes.
His ruling regarding the constitutionality was correct, However:
After the case, he urged Jefferson to grant them, but the President decided to be a douche about it and continued to ignore them.
You failed to address the comment entirely.
BAAAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!! OMG! AHAHAHAH! Too funny, man... too funny!
After such an erudite video, your comment is farcical at best.
The "FOUNDATION" upon which the United States rest is the People and the States not the "CONSTITUTION!" duh!
says for the "FIRST-REPUBLIC" from 1774-1789 "BEFORE" Washington and 'HIS" Constitution!