Marbury - got appointed and approved for Justice of the Peace and petitioned against Madison for not giving him his job Madison - the new Secretary of State; refused to give Marbury his commission Marshal - the old Secretary of State (for Adams) who ran out of time to give out the commissions and became the Chief Justice once Jefferson's presidency started, where he wrote the majority opinion on Marbury vs. Madison. Yeah I can see how that would be confusing lol.
Find the podcast "More Perfect." It's done by yhe same people as "Radiolab." Find the June 30 episode called "Kittens Kick The Giggly Blue Robot All Summer." Pay no mind to the title -- that applies to the end of the episode and serves as a mnemonic device to remember the SCOTUS Justices' names. It gets into greater detail that this guy doesn't even mention. There was bad blood between Chief Justice Marshall and President Jefferson. It is an incredible story!
Oh my god. I think I love you. I'm studying for finals and every time I tried to read the marbury vs madison case, I literally have to take a 5 hour nap. And this may be for kids, but hey college students and kids are basically the same with all the napping and crying
+TheCissanist No problem. I just took a nap and might have a good cry later. I'm glad you found the channel now be sure to sub and tell one billion people please. ~Keith
I have been spending so much time TRYING to figure it out! I read the manuscripts and reviews but oh my, they just make it more complicated. And ew the way they worded things back then makes life so much harder!
I remember first seeing this video when I was in the eight grade for my U.S History class... fast forward in time and I am now a senior at my university in a Con Law class with a political science major. This video made my life easier before and it sure is doing it now too!
this case was killing me. i stumble upon this guy. bam i got it in a few minutes. when it came to class bam,bam,bam! i knew my facts. my prof was surprised when asked how did i remember it. i dropped this guy names, hip hughes. turns out even my prof liked this person because he was able to translate the complexity of case easily.
Brazilian student here. I read a lot about this case in my books and I wanted to see some video explaining it, then I found yours. That's amazing, man. You're an awesome teacher. Glad I could practice law and English at the same time. Thanks!
This is literally the best thing ever! I don't know how many students you've helped, but just know I am one of them! So wish I had you as a teacher! Thank you for this video!
Thanks for the kind words and I'm glad it helped! I hope my video arsenal continues to be a valuable resource. You may now continue kicking the world's ass.
You don't know the amount of help you've provided me through college ! Thank you so, so very much(: keep making videos . Makes history so much more cool😎
This is awesome, thank you! It reminds me of Crash Course. It makes learning fun and enjoyable. I really enjoy teachers / professors like you. My history teacher is very educational and I actually enjoy her lectures. Thank you for making a difference.
Love your videos, and their format. Love the US history because, I'm sure a majority of US born citizens, including myself, would not pass a citizenship test because a lack of the knowledge of much of the information you present, but things to know for those seeking US citizenship. So here I am late in life, catching up. Keep up the great work.
basically, President Adams passed judiciary act so he could hire federalists judges (midnight judges) one of the judges, marbury, did not get his appointment (or official document saying he’s a judge) on time and was denied the job by the secretary of state, madison
8:01 WRONG! This part is wrong. Marbury vs. Madison does NOT give judges lawmaking power. Marbury vs. Madison ONLY gives judges the power to INTERPRET THE WORDS ON THE PAGE, whether that page be the Constitution or Federal Laws passed by Congress. Lawmaking is the act of WRITING THE WORDS ON THE PAGE, and if lawmakers are clear in their language then the judges will have no choice to interpret the clear meaning of the text of those words.
what i do not get is if they thought question one and two were yes, how can question three be no and Marbury still not receive his commission? not giving him his commission still seems unconstitutional if his appeal was legal and allowable.
OMG i have been out of school for a while decided to go back and i'm taking a government class on a Saturday morning and i'm so lost as to what my teacher is talking about but your videos have given me life i'm now kind of understanding!!!!!!!!! thank you
So, they took on a case unconstitutionally, declared it unconstitutional because it gave them a power not in the Constitution, and thus gave themselves a power not mentioned in the Constitution?
Thanks bud, this is the third video of yours that has been very helpful to me. A lot of these subjects can be very difficult to understand and you simplify this to the point where even young learners can grasp it. Thanks again and I wish you the best!
Hi Keith: New viewer. My god!, I have got an undergraduate degree, a master's degree in U.S. History and and a Juris Doctor degree from an accredited law school and this is the clearest explanation I have ever heard of Marbury. Thanks so much for explaining one of the foundational philosophical cornerstones of U.S. Supreme Court history in a crystal clear manner. Doug Owen.
Judicial Act of 1789 also mentions that Lawyers as members of the BAR cannot sit as Judge, this is back by Aticle 1, Section 9 and Section 10, along with the Separation of Powers.
It’s a great decision, on so many levels. Marshall was a genius. By the way, one of the things that Congress did that was also genius was to reduce the number of Justices from 6 to 5, to deprive Jefferson the right to replace the first vacancy in his term. Political chicanery at its finest.
Crammed for an essay in my Law and Society about this Supreme Court case and your video helped me out so much thanks you earned yourself a subscription and a like. Thanks
There's a lot more to the story. A lot more. So let me give part of it... Most people, lawyers I've talked with especially, hang their Judicial Review hat on, not only Marbury v. Madison, but Federalist 78 that predated Marbury by 15 years. In it, Hamilton says the judiciary has this right of judicial review (using other terms, of course). Yes, Federalist 78 did say this; but, so what? It was an essay written anonymously by Alexander Hamilton (we think) under the name "Publius." Even if it's certain beyond anyone's ability to lie, it was still an opinion piece published in a New York newspaper long after New Hampshire agreed to ratify the constitution (which was a deal struck in Feb and not June 1788 when it was ratified, but I digress). A lot of people know this, but here's what they won't tell you. A month after the Constitution was approved at the convention (eight months before it was ratified), its primary author-James Madison-wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson basically saying the notion of judicial review that they talked about was nonsense because if they wanted the Supreme Court of The United States to have a role in the legislative process-at the state or federal level-the Constitution would insert that role at the state and federal level BEFORE a bill became law and not after. After all, why allow this horrible and injurious law to hang around for years until a case is ripe enough for the SCOTUS? Judicial Review, which is not in the Constitution like the president's less powerful check against the legislature, was not some latent assumption the founders had, and it was purposely left out of the Constitution. Need more convincing? Jefferson was conveniently left out of this when he was made embassador to France (1785) two years prior to the Constitutional Convention (1787). By the way, if I was planning on pulling this off, I would have done so years in the making, and I certainly would have shipped Jefferson off to another country. But surprisingly, although everyone knows Thomas Jefferson was against Judicial Review (maybe that's not the case), he was for it before he was against it. In fact, three months after the Constitution was approved (not ratified) in September of 1787, on December 20, 1787 he wrote Madison and told him he wished the Constitution had given [the judiciary] the check it gave the president, or at least made it a part of that process. Remember, this letter was six months before it was ratified in June of 1788. In other words, we are taught that Judicial Review was somehow organically built into the constitution, or latently implied, and this revelation was brought to our attention by Chief Justice John Marshall, but we know they discussed before the Constitution was approved, they decided against including it, Madison made the comment it was a foolish, Jefferson thought it would have been a good idea but noted it was never added to the Constitution, and six months later the Constitution became the law of the land, and without being revised to include Judicial Review. If they thought no one would have a problem with it, they could have added it. If they knew they'd have a problem with it, it makes sense that they would do what they did. We also know in 1819, Thomas Jefferson explained why Judicial Review is a bad idea in a letter he wrote to Judge Spencer Roane in 1819 seven years before the former died. In that letter he made it clear it was never supposed to be in the Constitution. I say that because a lawyer once tried to tell me "there wasn't time" to amend the Constitution. They had at least six or eight months when you consider the primary authors of both the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are telling us Judicial Review is NOT implied or stated in the Constitution. That is a part of the story that makes me wonder why everyone leaves that out. I studied the Constitution in college and grad school, but I never knew about these until I bought thousands of pages of letters from our founding fathers. I once noticed the Library of Congress archived newspaper articles from 1836 (ten years after Jefferson died) until 1922 (chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030213/1856-10-02/ed-1/seq-4/#date1=1836&index=2&rows=20&words=arms+bear+keep&searchType=basic&sequence=0&state=&date2=1859&proxtext=keep+and+bear+arms&y=13&x=11&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1). I played around in them and found some really cool stuff like how a farmer at turn of the century made a cordless phone and had a conversation with someone on the other side of town in front of a journalist. Anyway... I then remember the Library (of Congress) made an announcement they were going to start digitizing and archiving newspaper articles from 1922 forward. I "asked the librarian" about the articles before 1836, after all, it would make sense to do those first as paper ages, right? (assuming they had not digitized these yet, when in reality they probably did). The "librarian" didn't have an answer other than that was what they were doing. Is it possible they don't want people reading this stuff? Jefferson commented that the Congress was strangely quiet about Marbury. After all, what was billed (no pun intended) as a fight between the judicial and executive branches actually turned out to be knockout against the legislative branch. If you were a senator or representative in 1803, and the Supreme Court just stuck down one of your laws that had been around for 14 years (the Judiciary Act of 1789)-declaring it as unconstitutional because it fundamentally changed the Constitution (which I agree)-and they did it by using a power it had not been granted in the Constitution (thus fundamentally changing it even more), don't you think both members of Congress and the public would have been wondering about this? Don't you think it would have played out in the papers at the time? So why a conspiracy? What the SCOTUS should have said was that it can't accept the case because it didn't agree it should have original jurisdiction (and that if the congress felt it should, it should vote to amend the Constitution). After all, if the SCOTUS takes a case first, the parties involved in the dispute get one bite at the apple because it is the Supreme Court of the land, the last and final say in the COURT SYSTEM (not in its legislative equivalent). As in all matters where there seems to be a conflict with the constitution, or a bad or oppressive law generally, it should be sent back to the Congress to make right. After all, if what is does to correct the law, or not correct it, proves unpopular, wouldn't it be best to have the decision emerge out of a body of government officials who can be held accountable? After all, the congresspeople can be voted out of office, SCOTUS justice can't. Especially because that is the process according to the Constitution??? By selling this lie about Judicial Review, SOME of the earlier founding fathers knew they were building in a safeguard into the constitution that consolidated enormous power within the judicial branch. We can trace most of what's bad in politics to money. Citizens United made it worse when the Supreme Court reversed earlier opinions that corporations were NOT people. By granting them first amendment rights, the SCOTUS intervened by striking down Congress' 2002 campaign finance reform laws (8 years later I might add), making it easier for the uber-wealthy to control the political system. That's what can happen when a simple majority of justices issue a writ of mandamus telling another branch of the federal government what they can or cannot do. It allows a hand full of justices to override up to 536 people normally having some role in the process (435 representatives, 100 senators, and the president who can make it harder, but not impossible, to pass a bill into law). The SCOTUS' veto power, however, can happen after it passes, and almost always many years later. Doesn't this seem a bit contrived to you? Well, I believe it was, especially after reading Susan L. Bloch's 2001 peer reviewed article most people never hear about as well about the "Marbury Mystery". She proves William Marbury knew he shouldn't file his case in the Supreme Court if he wanted to win it, and his friends helped, one of them being none other than Chief Justice John Marshall's brother!!! Every fact I've included herein can be easily verified via google search. The facts also raise some troubling questions. If you know where to look, the illegal nature of Judicial Review, and the conspiracy behind it, is easy to understand. You have to ask yourselves why no one talks about it.
Thank you so much for helping me get a better understanding of the main issue. Definitely helped a lot. I appreciate the time you put in to making this!!
Genio, muy bien explicado y super claro, saludos desde Argentina. You are a genius. It's a very good explanation and very helpfull. Thanks from Argentina
Bridget Kathryn Glad you found the channel Bridget! You can find all of the videos organized at www.hiphughes.com Just visit the video arsenal. And be sure to tell your classmates! Thanks again for the kudos!
Find the podcast "More Perfect." It's done by yhe same people as "Radiolab." Find the June 30 episode called "Kittens Kick The Giggly Blue Robot All Summer." Pay no mind to the title -- that applies to the end of the episode and serves as a mnemonic device to remember the SCOTUS Justices' names. It gets into greater detail that this guy doesn't even mention. There was bad blood between Chief Justice Marshall and President Jefferson. It is an incredible story!
I watched 4 versions of Marbury v Madison. This was the best. It especially helped me to see the outgrowth of Judicial Review, ie., Miranda Rights, State paid attorneys and abortion rights which are bound to be challenged soon.
Supreme Court: I follow the the Constitution not Congress Society: ok, judicial review is unconstitutional. Supreme Court: no the courts get to decide what's unconstitutional. Society: O_o
Hey great video I have to write this brief thing for my law class i'm taking this semester on this case so I read like five different articles trying to figure out what it was about and was completely lost until i found this video. Thanks bro
Kind of a funny story. I probably found it six or seven years ago and some music library through a network I belong to. It’s title was “happy hip”, So I was pretty psyched when I liked it
Enjoyed your presentation. Question: What's the thinking behind having all these debates about rights (which have ended up going on, and on, and on) when they are pinned down under The Protection of Individual Rights (PIR); isn't it the PIR that needs to be debated and understood so that it becomes clear what that means?
HIP HUGHES MY GUY. As you said Madison and Jefferson refused to give those commissions out 3:58 does that mean that all of the other “judges” were also denied as judges? Or just Madison after the whole case? Little confused Also your review helps a lot will you do a review session like you have done previous years before? I would be sure to tune in to the CZcamss and the twitters
I honestly dont get what my history teacher is teaching in class... so every two days before a test and shit I just come to youtube and be like “oh...that’s what this mean...”
Did Chief Justice John Marshall find power for the judicial branch that was not intended by the Framers of the Constitution, or did he put into action power that was implied? How do you know?
Keith..... As a member of the Hamilton fandom, allow me to correct you. One does not call Thomas Jefferson, "TJ." One calls Thomas Jefferson, "TJeffs."
You guys are just great. I love your videos. I'm all jiggy wit it. The Supreme Court has no power to enforce its decisions. Was this a problem early on, as they were gathering their powers?
While I do think Judicial review is a good thing, it does seem like the court just gave itself this power out of nowhere. I'm not sure how I feel about institutions giving themselves power
Mulberry vs Madison is fundamental in any case outside of district court where a cop is standing plaintiff, he is a state employee, so is the prosecution and judge, this is abuse of process and malicious prosecution and can be put on the record in their courts, Watch the charade and them continue the case to a unknown date that never comes, because if it does you March over to federal district court grab the filing forms for a federal complaint and sue everyone holding an oath of office who infringed on your rights under title 18 section 241 and 242, also title 42 USC 1983... the state cant hold you because there's no complaint by a citizen of body damage or property damage, if the state wants to stand victim of a crime they must file under the correct jurisdiction, Cops think they hold an oath to the DMV, if so own their ass and file a lawsuit on any ticket they file, without a complaint from a citizen of a crime or witness to one, there's no due process of law, no warrant no probable cause no cases... period traffic laws are for those who contracted into commercial law, it's a presumption all citizens are contracted but it's crazy cops will scream it's the law, yet I whisper ok I call your bluff and let's let a federal judge rule on it... all the drama stops unless they are retarded from all the roids... You're welcome
Marbury v Madison is a kangaroo decision. Justice Marshall says I don’t have jurisdiction to grant Mr. Marbury a writ of mandamus because it’s not in the constitution. But on the other hand, I can strike down § 13 of Judiciary Act 1789 as unconstitutional even though the Constitution doesn’t grant me the authority to do so. You can’t make it make sense.
+ashley ko Next time I'll talk really slow and try to be uncool if that helps. Seriosuly though there are hundred drier, slower documentaries on Marbury on CZcams, I say have at it.
Marbury v Madison set the precedent of judiciary review, meaning that the Supreme Court can determined if a law goes against the Constitution or not. It gave a power to the Judiciary that was never directly written in the Constitution but at the same time comes from the conclusion that the Constitution is the highest piece of law of the land. There's more details involved in the case itself but this is the main take away.
Judicial review still has restrictions. If a bad call was made, it's up to the other branches to call them on it and that bad call [bad call as in a ruling that contradicts the constitution] is as legally binding as a sheet of toilet paper. Judicial review is meant to be APPLICATION of the Constitution, not interpretation of it. And Marbury was right, there is nothing in Article 1 giving congress the authority to expand any federal power, a constitutional amendment is required for expansion, a fact that has gone ignored for far too long. The problem is that SCOTUS rulings that go against the Constitution [Filburn and Miller being a couple big ones] NEVER get challenged. Meaning the government, and the population as a whole, have essentially thrown checks and balances out of the window and as a result SCOTUS rulings are treated as law. Perfect example, if SCOTUS ruled that the government has the authority to randomly raid your house without a warrant, the government and the population would treat it as gospel even though the ruling rather blatantly violates the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments to the constitution.
law making is complete different subject from judicial review. right after you said "supreme court have given them the power of judicial review, that is, checking the validity of legislative and executive action in light of constitution", you said that now supreme court is making law, like guidelines to police. this is something follows from the Marbury v Madison judgement? I believe that's a complete different subject, isn't it? pls shed some light on this and thankyou for this information and if possible, do make another video providing for the real authority or source from the US constitution to impute to themselves this power of judicial review apart from oath aspect which I believe that even legislature and executive do take the same, Thank you Sir
Can there be a "Marbury v. Madison" for dummies? I get lost in all of the names, in this video.
Marbury - got appointed and approved for Justice of the Peace and petitioned against Madison for not giving him his job
Madison - the new Secretary of State; refused to give Marbury his commission
Marshal - the old Secretary of State (for Adams) who ran out of time to give out the commissions and became the Chief Justice once Jefferson's presidency started, where he wrote the majority opinion on Marbury vs. Madison.
Yeah I can see how that would be confusing lol.
Find the podcast "More Perfect." It's done by yhe same people as "Radiolab." Find the June 30 episode called "Kittens Kick The Giggly Blue Robot All Summer." Pay no mind to the title -- that applies to the end of the episode and serves as a mnemonic device to remember the SCOTUS Justices' names. It gets into greater detail that this guy doesn't even mention. There was bad blood between Chief Justice Marshall and President Jefferson. It is an incredible story!
It helps to take notes while watching videos.
Watch it on 2x and pause it to take notes, it'll make more sense
Same
Oh my god. I think I love you. I'm studying for finals and every time I tried to read the marbury vs madison case, I literally have to take a 5 hour nap.
And this may be for kids, but hey college students and kids are basically the same with all the napping and crying
+TheCissanist No problem. I just took a nap and might have a good cry later. I'm glad you found the channel now be sure to sub and tell one billion people please. ~Keith
🤣😂
you alright?
this is for kids ?
I have been spending so much time TRYING to figure it out! I read the manuscripts and reviews but oh my, they just make it more complicated. And ew the way they worded things back then makes life so much harder!
I remember first seeing this video when I was in the eight grade for my U.S History class... fast forward in time and I am now a senior at my university in a Con Law class with a political science major. This video made my life easier before and it sure is doing it now too!
Big deal
this case was killing me. i stumble upon this guy. bam i got it in a few minutes. when it came to class bam,bam,bam! i knew my facts. my prof was surprised when asked how did i remember it. i dropped this guy names, hip hughes. turns out even my prof liked this person because he was able to translate the complexity of case easily.
Got Marbury v Madison? The essence of judicial power. Students, you need it. Life Long Learners, you want it. Cray Cray on the Internet, you love it.
Good One!
sir can u make another one for baker vs carr? hehee tnxxxxxxxxxxxx
thats not a bad idea!
Charish Mae Estribor It took a while but your idea made the cut! thanks for the idea. czcams.com/video/JppOSynBBPs/video.html
+Keith Hughes (HipHughes) what is the difference between a law passed by congress and an amendment? Congress passes amendments don't they?
Brazilian student here. I read a lot about this case in my books and I wanted to see some video explaining it, then I found yours. That's amazing, man. You're an awesome teacher. Glad I could practice law and English at the same time. Thanks!
Jefferson's all like "YO, GO TO DA WHITE HOUSE". Best part of the video
This is literally the best thing ever! I don't know how many students you've helped, but just know I am one of them! So wish I had you as a teacher! Thank you for this video!
I read this case about five times and didn't truly get it until I watched this. You sir, are a godsend.
This video made my life so much easier. I would love to have you as a teacher because you are funny as hell. Thanks!
Thanks for the kind words and I'm glad it helped! I hope my video arsenal continues to be a valuable resource. You may now continue kicking the world's ass.
L
You don't know the amount of help you've provided me through college ! Thank you so, so very much(: keep making videos . Makes history so much more cool😎
You don't know the power of the non creepy warm teacher fuzzy you just gave me. Thanks.
Keith Hughes I am in law school right now and this provided clarity to my understanding!
Tanya Carreon t
This is awesome, thank you! It reminds me of Crash Course. It makes learning fun and enjoyable. I really enjoy teachers / professors like you. My history teacher is very educational and I actually enjoy her lectures. Thank you for making a difference.
Love your videos, and their format. Love the US history because, I'm sure a majority of US born citizens, including myself, would not pass a citizenship test because a lack of the knowledge of much of the information you present, but things to know for those seeking US citizenship. So here I am late in life, catching up. Keep up the great work.
basically, President Adams passed judiciary act so he could hire federalists judges (midnight judges) one of the judges, marbury, did not get his appointment (or official document saying he’s a judge) on time and was denied the job by the secretary of state, madison
You bring life to history so thankful for this channel
8:01 WRONG! This part is wrong. Marbury vs. Madison does NOT give judges lawmaking power. Marbury vs. Madison ONLY gives judges the power to INTERPRET THE WORDS ON THE PAGE, whether that page be the Constitution or Federal Laws passed by Congress. Lawmaking is the act of WRITING THE WORDS ON THE PAGE, and if lawmakers are clear in their language then the judges will have no choice to interpret the clear meaning of the text of those words.
what i do not get is if they thought question one and two were yes, how can question three be no and Marbury still not receive his commission? not giving him his commission still seems unconstitutional if his appeal was legal and allowable.
My final exam is tomorrow and finding these videos made my day! Thank you!
OMG i have been out of school for a while decided to go back and i'm taking a government class on a Saturday morning and i'm so lost as to what my teacher is talking about but your videos have given me life i'm now kind of understanding!!!!!!!!! thank you
So, they took on a case unconstitutionally, declared it unconstitutional because it gave them a power not in the Constitution, and thus gave themselves a power not mentioned in the Constitution?
CornerTalker ruling on the case wasn’t unconstitutional that’s their job
Oh my gosh. This was soooo much more helpful than any other book or video I've seen about this case. Thank you!!! I actually understand it now.
+Nikkole Adams #winning Ill see you back here when you need help on any one of 358 topics. hiphugheshistory.weebly.com/the-video-arsenal.html
I'm In college right now studying up on this issue. Thanks for clarifying so much!
+SEVI AMMO mission accomplished! Glad it helped. Hope you sub and check out the video arsenals!
SEVI AMMO I am reading "The Activist" which is a really good book that analyzes the whole court case. Intro to criminology here I come.
So glad these videos exist so I don’t have to read boring shit and it becomes more interesting
Thanks bud, this is the third video of yours that has been very helpful to me. A lot of these subjects can be very difficult to understand and you simplify this to the point where even young learners can grasp it. Thanks again and I wish you the best!
You seriously made it sound so simple thank you!
This helped me understand my reading. A BIG thank you!
Very Nice! Loved! Im a law' student from Brazil and we are reviewing Marbury vc Madison.
Hi Keith: New viewer. My god!, I have got an undergraduate degree, a master's degree in U.S. History and and a Juris Doctor degree from an accredited law school and this is the clearest explanation I have ever heard of Marbury. Thanks so much for explaining one of the foundational philosophical cornerstones of U.S. Supreme Court history in a crystal clear manner. Doug Owen.
And?????
Judicial Act of 1789 also mentions that Lawyers as members of the BAR cannot sit as Judge, this is back by Aticle 1, Section 9 and Section 10, along with the Separation of Powers.
I read "judgeships" in my textbook tonight. It's a real word, don't doubt yourself Coach ;)
It’s a great decision, on so many levels. Marshall was a genius. By the way, one of the things that Congress did that was also genius was to reduce the number of Justices from 6 to 5, to deprive Jefferson the right to replace the first vacancy in his term. Political chicanery at its finest.
Crammed for an essay in my Law and Society about this Supreme Court case and your video helped me out so much thanks you earned yourself a subscription and a like. Thanks
This helped a ton. But I wish you would slow down the part on what they were arguing about that would have been beneficial towards me ☺
Main point: Made it to where lawmakers won't pass a law if they feel that it violates the U.S Constitution.
Tell that to a felon that can't hunt now
Great video. Really enjoyed it. Factual with a bit of humor thrown in. Great job, Mr. Hughes.
There's a lot more to the story. A lot more. So let me give part of it...
Most people, lawyers I've talked with especially, hang their Judicial Review hat on, not only Marbury v. Madison, but Federalist 78 that predated Marbury by 15 years. In it, Hamilton says the judiciary has this right of judicial review (using other terms, of course).
Yes, Federalist 78 did say this; but, so what? It was an essay written anonymously by Alexander Hamilton (we think) under the name "Publius." Even if it's certain beyond anyone's ability to lie, it was still an opinion piece published in a New York newspaper long after New Hampshire agreed to ratify the constitution (which was a deal struck in Feb and not June 1788 when it was ratified, but I digress).
A lot of people know this, but here's what they won't tell you. A month after the Constitution was approved at the convention (eight months before it was ratified), its primary author-James Madison-wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson basically saying the notion of judicial review that they talked about was nonsense because if they wanted the Supreme Court of The United States to have a role in the legislative process-at the state or federal level-the Constitution would insert that role at the state and federal level BEFORE a bill became law and not after. After all, why allow this horrible and injurious law to hang around for years until a case is ripe enough for the SCOTUS?
Judicial Review, which is not in the Constitution like the president's less powerful check against the legislature, was not some latent assumption the founders had, and it was purposely left out of the Constitution.
Need more convincing? Jefferson was conveniently left out of this when he was made embassador to France (1785) two years prior to the Constitutional Convention (1787). By the way, if I was planning on pulling this off, I would have done so years in the making, and I certainly would have shipped Jefferson off to another country.
But surprisingly, although everyone knows Thomas Jefferson was against Judicial Review (maybe that's not the case), he was for it before he was against it. In fact, three months after the Constitution was approved (not ratified) in September of 1787, on December 20, 1787 he wrote Madison and told him he wished the Constitution had given [the judiciary] the check it gave the president, or at least made it a part of that process. Remember, this letter was six months before it was ratified in June of 1788.
In other words, we are taught that Judicial Review was somehow organically built into the constitution, or latently implied, and this revelation was brought to our attention by Chief Justice John Marshall, but we know they discussed before the Constitution was approved, they decided against including it, Madison made the comment it was a foolish, Jefferson thought it would have been a good idea but noted it was never added to the Constitution, and six months later the Constitution became the law of the land, and without being revised to include Judicial Review. If they thought no one would have a problem with it, they could have added it. If they knew they'd have a problem with it, it makes sense that they would do what they did.
We also know in 1819, Thomas Jefferson explained why Judicial Review is a bad idea in a letter he wrote to Judge Spencer Roane in 1819 seven years before the former died. In that letter he made it clear it was never supposed to be in the Constitution. I say that because a lawyer once tried to tell me "there wasn't time" to amend the Constitution. They had at least six or eight months when you consider the primary authors of both the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are telling us Judicial Review is NOT implied or stated in the Constitution.
That is a part of the story that makes me wonder why everyone leaves that out. I studied the Constitution in college and grad school, but I never knew about these until I bought thousands of pages of letters from our founding fathers.
I once noticed the Library of Congress archived newspaper articles from 1836 (ten years after Jefferson died) until 1922 (chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030213/1856-10-02/ed-1/seq-4/#date1=1836&index=2&rows=20&words=arms+bear+keep&searchType=basic&sequence=0&state=&date2=1859&proxtext=keep+and+bear+arms&y=13&x=11&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1). I played around in them and found some really cool stuff like how a farmer at turn of the century made a cordless phone and had a conversation with someone on the other side of town in front of a journalist. Anyway...
I then remember the Library (of Congress) made an announcement they were going to start digitizing and archiving newspaper articles from 1922 forward. I "asked the librarian" about the articles before 1836, after all, it would make sense to do those first as paper ages, right? (assuming they had not digitized these yet, when in reality they probably did). The "librarian" didn't have an answer other than that was what they were doing.
Is it possible they don't want people reading this stuff?
Jefferson commented that the Congress was strangely quiet about Marbury. After all, what was billed (no pun intended) as a fight between the judicial and executive branches actually turned out to be knockout against the legislative branch. If you were a senator or representative in 1803, and the Supreme Court just stuck down one of your laws that had been around for 14 years (the Judiciary Act of 1789)-declaring it as unconstitutional because it fundamentally changed the Constitution (which I agree)-and they did it by using a power it had not been granted in the Constitution (thus fundamentally changing it even more), don't you think both members of Congress and the public would have been wondering about this? Don't you think it would have played out in the papers at the time?
So why a conspiracy?
What the SCOTUS should have said was that it can't accept the case because it didn't agree it should have original jurisdiction (and that if the congress felt it should, it should vote to amend the Constitution). After all, if the SCOTUS takes a case first, the parties involved in the dispute get one bite at the apple because it is the Supreme Court of the land, the last and final say in the COURT SYSTEM (not in its legislative equivalent).
As in all matters where there seems to be a conflict with the constitution, or a bad or oppressive law generally, it should be sent back to the Congress to make right. After all, if what is does to correct the law, or not correct it, proves unpopular, wouldn't it be best to have the decision emerge out of a body of government officials who can be held accountable? After all, the congresspeople can be voted out of office, SCOTUS justice can't. Especially because that is the process according to the Constitution???
By selling this lie about Judicial Review, SOME of the earlier founding fathers knew they were building in a safeguard into the constitution that consolidated enormous power within the judicial branch.
We can trace most of what's bad in politics to money. Citizens United made it worse when the Supreme Court reversed earlier opinions that corporations were NOT people. By granting them first amendment rights, the SCOTUS intervened by striking down Congress' 2002 campaign finance reform laws (8 years later I might add), making it easier for the uber-wealthy to control the political system.
That's what can happen when a simple majority of justices issue a writ of mandamus telling another branch of the federal government what they can or cannot do. It allows a hand full of justices to override up to 536 people normally having some role in the process (435 representatives, 100 senators, and the president who can make it harder, but not impossible, to pass a bill into law). The SCOTUS' veto power, however, can happen after it passes, and almost always many years later.
Doesn't this seem a bit contrived to you? Well, I believe it was, especially after reading Susan L. Bloch's 2001 peer reviewed article most people never hear about as well about the "Marbury Mystery". She proves William Marbury knew he shouldn't file his case in the Supreme Court if he wanted to win it, and his friends helped, one of them being none other than Chief Justice John Marshall's brother!!!
Every fact I've included herein can be easily verified via google search.
The facts also raise some troubling questions. If you know where to look, the illegal nature of Judicial Review, and the conspiracy behind it, is easy to understand. You have to ask yourselves why no one talks about it.
This helped me understand it better for my Gov test on Federal Judiciary tomorrow. :)
Thank you so much for helping me get a better understanding of the main issue. Definitely helped a lot. I appreciate the time you put in to making this!!
Genio, muy bien explicado y super claro, saludos desde Argentina.
You are a genius. It's a very good explanation and very helpfull. Thanks from Argentina
I subbed! I can never understand what my history teacher is explaining. Thank you so much everything finally makes sense!
Bridget Kathryn Glad you found the channel Bridget! You can find all of the videos organized at www.hiphughes.com Just visit the video arsenal. And be sure to tell your classmates! Thanks again for the kudos!
I have a constitutional law exam in 3 hours so thank god for this video
my 8th grade teacher is just like you! there should be more history teachers like you so we wont fall asleep
Succinct and clear, as well as engaging in format. This is a great overview for MS and HS students, and teachers will enjoy it, too.
Find the podcast "More Perfect." It's done by yhe same people as "Radiolab." Find the June 30 episode called "Kittens Kick The Giggly Blue Robot All Summer." Pay no mind to the title -- that applies to the end of the episode and serves as a mnemonic device to remember the SCOTUS Justices' names. It gets into greater detail that this guy doesn't even mention. There was bad blood between Chief Justice Marshall and President Jefferson. It is an incredible story!
czcams.com/video/Hl10LfMaK0k/video.html
Honestly mate, your videos are amazing.
I'm doing a undergrad course in U.S. Law, and I seem to be searching for your videos in all my courses!
thank you for existing! your videos are life, basically saved me every time :)
LMAO. This was the best explanation everrr, although my teacher is as funny as you, he didn't quite explain this case. Thank you so much!
Needed a quick review and you nailed it. Thank you. Subbed.
best brief of this case ever
would you be able to do a video like this and your McCulloch v. Maryland video on the US v. Lopez case?
I watched 4 versions of Marbury v Madison. This was the best. It especially helped me to see the outgrowth of Judicial Review, ie., Miranda Rights, State paid attorneys and abortion rights which are bound to be challenged soon.
Supreme Court: I follow the the Constitution not Congress
Society: ok, judicial review is unconstitutional.
Supreme Court: no the courts get to decide what's unconstitutional.
Society: O_o
Haha loved this review! Thanks for simplifying this case and adding humor 🤣
Hey great video I have to write this brief thing for my law class i'm taking this semester on this case so I read like five different articles trying to figure out what it was about and was completely lost until i found this video. Thanks bro
your videos are so helpful I'm a pre law major and this is just a blessing make more on important cases !!
Great video! Ty for the informative content! Quick question: what's the song @ 0:32-0:35?
Kind of a funny story. I probably found it six or seven years ago and some music library through a network I belong to. It’s title was “happy hip”, So I was pretty psyched when I liked it
Thank you! I learn so much better with wit involved, and I feel enlightened.
+Ramon Ciani Thanks for the kind comment!
Thank you for making history of law so much more fun (and understandable) for a confused European like me!
How many of u know that Jefferson and Marshall had this planned out prior to assuming office....
Watching this during my first week of con law. Thanks :P
OMG this is an amazing youtube channel. Thank you for this particular vid, you awesome and keep making vids
Thanks for the kudos. I plan on it.
Helped me write a one page summary on the case for extra credit! Thank you.
Enjoyed your presentation.
Question: What's the thinking behind having all these debates about rights (which have ended up going on, and on, and on) when they are pinned down under The Protection of Individual Rights (PIR); isn't it the PIR that needs to be debated and understood so that it becomes clear what that means?
HIP HUGHES MY GUY. As you said Madison and Jefferson refused to give those commissions out 3:58 does that mean that all of the other “judges” were also denied as judges? Or just Madison after the whole case? Little confused
Also your review helps a lot will you do a review session like you have done previous years before? I would be sure to tune in to the CZcamss and the twitters
Oh my goodness I wish you were my teacher. This is fantastic.
I honestly dont get what my history teacher is teaching in class... so every two days before a test and shit I just come to youtube and be like “oh...that’s what this mean...”
Technically the Federalist Papers were the ones who created Judicial Review. Marbury v. Madison put it into action.
Great Explanation!
Thank you god bless you Mr. HipHughes
You are literally my favorite person lol
Bless ur heart, u just wrote an FRQ
Actually you wrote it; I'll gladly take the assist. You may now continue to kick the world's ass using CZcams.
a slightly uncooked lemon I have an FRQ tmmr on the judicial branch. is it easy?
Did Chief Justice John Marshall find power for the judicial branch that was not intended by the Framers of the Constitution, or did he put into action power that was implied? How do you know?
SO much better than reading the book thanks@
You just made my AP United States History review easier. Thank you!!!!!!
#missionaccomplished We have over 175 US vids w/ uploads weekly! Be sure to subscribe and tell all your peeps! Thanks for your viewership!
Keith..... As a member of the Hamilton fandom, allow me to correct you. One does not call Thomas Jefferson, "TJ." One calls Thomas Jefferson, "TJeffs."
+Cecil Hawes only if I get to call Hamilton, Hammy
Keith Hughes I'll give you that.
The why you explain the case, it makes it easier to understand, can you explain Mathews v Lucas ?
Thank you from Brazil!!! Studying for Constitucional Law test ;D
You guys are just great. I love your videos. I'm all jiggy wit it.
The Supreme Court has no power to enforce its decisions. Was this a problem early on, as they were gathering their powers?
M v M = Judicial sleight of hand. You can hate it, but you still have to love it.
🙏🙏🙏 thank you. this case is honestly so confusing!
While I do think Judicial review is a good thing, it does seem like the court just gave itself this power out of nowhere. I'm not sure how I feel about institutions giving themselves power
hes very fun and makes it easy to learn
yessssss this is another term on my ID midterm tomorrow!!
So did Marbury ever get to be a judge? Did he take it to another court after the SCOTUS told him they couldn't issue the writ?
Mulberry vs Madison is fundamental in any case outside of district court where a cop is standing plaintiff, he is a state employee, so is the prosecution and judge, this is abuse of process and malicious prosecution and can be put on the record in their courts,
Watch the charade and them continue the case to a unknown date that never comes, because if it does you March over to federal district court grab the filing forms for a federal complaint and sue everyone holding an oath of office who infringed on your rights under title 18 section 241 and 242, also title 42 USC 1983... the state cant hold you because there's no complaint by a citizen of body damage or property damage, if the state wants to stand victim of a crime they must file under the correct jurisdiction,
Cops think they hold an oath to the DMV, if so own their ass and file a lawsuit on any ticket they file, without a complaint from a citizen of a crime or witness to one, there's no due process of law, no warrant no probable cause no cases... period traffic laws are for those who contracted into commercial law, it's a presumption all citizens are contracted but it's crazy cops will scream it's the law, yet I whisper ok I call your bluff and let's let a federal judge rule on it... all the drama stops unless they are retarded from all the roids...
You're welcome
This case changed history forever.
Marbury v Madison is a kangaroo decision. Justice Marshall says I don’t have jurisdiction to grant Mr. Marbury a writ of mandamus because it’s not in the constitution. But on the other hand, I can strike down § 13 of Judiciary Act 1789 as unconstitutional even though the Constitution doesn’t grant me the authority to do so. You can’t make it make sense.
I have to learn this on the Federal Government Exam...
I still don't understand .-.
He talked way too fast and he tried to be cool which was just sad
+ashley ko Next time I'll talk really slow and try to be uncool if that helps. Seriosuly though there are hundred drier, slower documentaries on Marbury on CZcams, I say have at it.
고유진 is not at all passive aggressive.
Marbury v Madison set the precedent of judiciary review, meaning that the Supreme Court can determined if a law goes against the Constitution or not. It gave a power to the Judiciary that was never directly written in the Constitution but at the same time comes from the conclusion that the Constitution is the highest piece of law of the land. There's more details involved in the case itself but this is the main take away.
Is it true that congress can take away the courts power of judicial review via legislation?
Judicial review still has restrictions. If a bad call was made, it's up to the other branches to call them on it and that bad call [bad call as in a ruling that contradicts the constitution] is as legally binding as a sheet of toilet paper. Judicial review is meant to be APPLICATION of the Constitution, not interpretation of it. And Marbury was right, there is nothing in Article 1 giving congress the authority to expand any federal power, a constitutional amendment is required for expansion, a fact that has gone ignored for far too long.
The problem is that SCOTUS rulings that go against the Constitution [Filburn and Miller being a couple big ones] NEVER get challenged. Meaning the government, and the population as a whole, have essentially thrown checks and balances out of the window and as a result SCOTUS rulings are treated as law.
Perfect example, if SCOTUS ruled that the government has the authority to randomly raid your house without a warrant, the government and the population would treat it as gospel even though the ruling rather blatantly violates the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments to the constitution.
im a college student, and now i kind of get it. still confused though.
+David Rojas do you get it now?
+Hannah Orellana little bit.
David Rojas its eassyyy
I'm confused too...not going to do well in that test
Ricardo Fajardo its super easy.
Me: IM GONNA PASS THE TEST IM GONNA PASS THE TES-
AP GOVT TEST: NO YOUR NOT
Psych? You mean sike?
What is the main issue in Marbury Vs Madison court case?
It seems like the same 10 guys were running the government back then and just traded positions every 4 years.
You are a beautiful beautiful man sir and the world of middle school has been blessed by your presence
You save my life. Your videos make way more sense than the ones my history teacher shows us. Giddy up for the learnin'!
Great video
law making is complete different subject from judicial review. right after you said "supreme court have given them the power of judicial review, that is, checking the validity of legislative and executive action in light of constitution", you said that now supreme court is making law, like guidelines to police. this is something follows from the Marbury v Madison judgement? I believe that's a complete different subject, isn't it? pls shed some light on this and thankyou for this information and if possible, do make another video providing for the real authority or source from the US constitution to impute to themselves this power of judicial review apart from oath aspect which I believe that even legislature and executive do take the same, Thank you Sir