Jump to content

Talk:Marbury v. Madison

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good articleMarbury v. Madison has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 15, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 12, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 5, 2018Good article nomineeListed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 24, 2005, February 24, 2006, February 24, 2007, February 24, 2008, February 24, 2009, February 24, 2010, February 24, 2013, February 24, 2017, February 24, 2019, and February 24, 2021.
Current status: Good article

Laws applied

[edit]

Infobox says "Laws applied: U.S. Const. arts. I, III; Judiciary Act of 1789 § 13". Article I of course falls within the scope of Congress and its policy-making (i.e. laws). Wouldn't be the case of referencing Article I also directly in the text if possible? And, secondarily, shouldn't "Category:United States Constitution Article One case law" be added? Lone Internaut (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Void'?

[edit]

In the captions to the 4 portraits besides the 'Background' section, Jefferson is attributed with the belief that 'Marbury's undelivered commission was void'. Is that so: the Court held it was not void, of course. Marbury had the title of JP, just lacked an easy means to prove it. (No point rocking up to the JP court and demanding to take a seat - or writing to the Treasury demanding the salary - if you didn't have the Commission or a court order to evidence it).

Would Jefferson even have thought in such legalistic terms - 'void' having a distinct legal meaning. Wouldn't it be truer to say in the caption that Jefferson 'believed withholding Marbury's commission was a legal way to prevent him assuming the judgeship'  ? Laworr1 (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

article 1

[edit]

article 1 which is mentioned in the laws applied section is not mentioned anywhere else in the article or the original supreme court opinion so it should be remove from laws applied 70.168.135.229 (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution is actual law?

[edit]

"It established that the U.S. Constitution is actual law, not just a statement of political principles and ideals."

By it's own Supreme Clause (Article VI, Paragraph 2), The United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the United States (land).

It is the United States Constitution, erroneously spammed on the internet as the "Federal Consitution". U.S. stands for United States. 73.169.181.43 (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]