Read the Mabury v. Madison Supreme Court Summary and decision:
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm
(also document 71-12 on your Out of Many source CD ROM)
In your notes, prepare a list of questions and discussion points for a seminar on the issue of Judicial Review.
Think criticially about the benefits and limitations of an independent judiciary.
Did the outcome of this case support a federalist or anti-federalist position?
Does the structure of the US judiciary promote or hinder the democratic process?
Your blog will be due Sunday, to prepare make sure you have a copy of your group's interview notes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I love my AP US History Class 4eva!
Teresa Konopka
Block H
AP US
The Marbury versus Madison debate was truly heated. William Marbury, who was associated with John Adams, sued Secretary of State Madison. By doing this, Marbury hoped to forcibly deliver his commission as a justice of the peace in the federal district. A Supreme Court justice, John Marshall, refused Marbury’s claims, stating that Supreme Court jurisdiction over Marbury’s matters was unconstitutional (not mentioned in the Constitution). Marshall did not want to assert the power of the judicial review over federal legislation. That is why, at the bottom of the document, the words “The rule must be discharged” appear. This outcome seems Federalist. Since Federalists were originally in support of the US Constitution, it makes sense that anything not specifically stated there would be dismissed. It seems as if Marbury’s local legislation would pay him no attention (either that or he simply did not consult with them). Regardless, Marbury took the action of going to the Supreme Court and asking for judicial review over federal legislation, which was a vain attempt. As for the structure of the US judiciary, it promoted the democratic process. It equipped fairness to all Americans and, as shown, did not show any favoritism to Adams-appointed men like Marbury.
As for the relation to the interviews, both seem to lean towards Federalist ideas and the fact that the nation is a whole is a popular one (i.e- exceptions should not be made). Most interviewees stated that they’d rather have a strong Federal government than tiny States passing their own legislation on controversial issues. Brian H, a 47-year-old from Albany who worked in sales, said that he wanted just one rule that would not be broken. Both Kevin S and John B, middle-aged men from Albany who worked as chefs and factory workers, were heavily against gay rights and wanted no exceptions in any states. Greg B, a 42-year-old clerk, claimed that capital punishment and gay rights should be controlled by the Federal government and not be disposed of in any state. VR, a middle-aged woman, also wanted a Federalist United States. Josh J, a 20-year-old who worked for Higher Education, was the only one that felt that different states needed different laws. In a sense, Josh J was like Marbury since he wanted to make an exception. That is, he wanted states to pass their own legislature. Like Marbury, people such as Josh J are often dismissed since any exceptions on their behalf (judicial review for example) would extend power over federal legislation.
Response to AP students:
The document is sort of dense and isn’t easy to work through. Try also reading into other accounts on the Marbury versus Madison debate--it worked for me! :)
* Since I have a film camera, not a digital one, my pictures will take some time to develop. As soon as they arrive in the mail (from the York picture company) , I’ll hand them in.
Post a Comment