  The ground breaking decision, written by Chief Justice John Marshall and clarifying the power of the judiciary. (15 min) |
|
| Teacher's GuideMarbury vs. Madison The concept of judicial review was established in a Supreme Court decision made early in our country’s history—a decision in the case known as Marbury vs. Madison. Judicial Review means that we intend to live by the principles of the Constitution, and that we believe that judges trained in the law are best qualified to uphold these principles; for judicial review gives the judicial branch of our government—and the Supreme Court in particular—the right to determine the constitutionality of all laws. In this landmark case, Chief Justice John Marshall found himself in a political dilemma involving the relationship of authority between the judicial and executive branches of government. The program explains how Marshall’s historic decision managed to both satisfy President Jefferson and permanently strengthen the power of the Supreme Court. Questions for Discussion, Review and Research 1. By what means can the President and Congress check the power of the Supreme Court? 2. In what manner, other than by judicial review, could we as a nation determine the constitutionality of a law? 3. The judicial appointments of the late Adams administration were made in a “lame duck” session lasting from November to early March. What amendment has made it impossible for the same kind of thing to happen today? 4. Is there a way to prevent judges from writing their own preferences and possibly their prejudices into their legal opinions? 5. What is meant by the terms “separation of powers”? What do you consider the most important powers of Congress, the Supreme Court, and the executive branch, as stated in the Constitution? Why do you think so? 6. What might have happened if Marbury had brought his suit in a lower federal court, and had appealed the decision to the Supreme Court? 7. What is the meaning of “original jurisdiction,” as applied to the Supreme Court? If original jurisdiction of the Court were not spelled out in the Constitution, would the policies and practices of the Court be changed? |
|