Relevant bibliographies by topics / Marbury / Journal articles
To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Marbury.

Journal articles on the topic 'Marbury'

Author: Grafiati
Published: 4 June 2021
Last updated: 9 February 2022

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Marbury.'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.

1

O'Fallon, James M. "Marbury." Stanford Law Review 44, no. 2 (January 1992): 219. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1228946.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

Weinberg, Louise. "Our "Marbury"." Virginia Law Review 89, no. 6 (October 2003): 1235. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3202394.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
3

ORREN, KAREN, and CHRISTOPHER WALKER. "Cold Case File: Indictable Acts and Officer Accountability inMarbury v. Madison." American Political Science Review 107, no. 2 (May 2013): 241–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0003055413000117.

Full text
Abstract:
Starting from the position that officer accountability is a core value of American constitutionalism, this article reassessesMarbury v. Madisonin light of the indictable acts connected to the nondelivery of Marbury's commission. First, it reads Chief Justice Marshall's opinion against the background of personal and political hostility among the principals, including between Marbury and President Jefferson. Second, it identifies avenues of further redress open to Marbury before and after the Supreme Court's refusal of the mandamus order, and it considers why they were not pursued. Finally, having identified alternative procedural traditions on which Marshall could have drawn, and reviewed decisions by state and federal judges in analogous suits against officers, it concludes thatMarbury'sdeepest contribution was to elevate the principle of jurisdiction over the imperative of remedy in constitutional decision making.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
4

Caputo, David A., Myron Q. Hale, Leon E. Trachtman, and Frank L. Wilson. "Marbury B. Ogle." PS: Political Science & Politics 24, no. 01 (March 1991): 79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1049096500053038.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
5

Paulsen, Michael Stokes. "The Irrepressible Myth of Marbury." Michigan Law Review 101, no. 8 (August 2003): 2706. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3595393.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
6

Schotten, Peter. "Marbury v. Madison, Rightly Understood." Perspectives on Political Science 33, no. 3 (July 2004): 134–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/ppsc.33.3.134-141.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
7

Ray, Clyde. "John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, and the Construction of Constitutional Legitimacy." Law, Culture and the Humanities 15, no. 1 (May 27, 2016): 205–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1743872116650867.

Full text
Abstract:
This study considers Chief Justice John Marshall’s famous opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803) as a vehicle for investigating contemporary interpretations of both John Marshall and the concept of constitutional legitimacy. In it, I examine how Marshall’s opinion located legitimacy in several aspects of the Constitution, including its protection of rights, its embodiment of the consent of the governed, and its ability to organize and direct national politics. Thus, I suggest that Marshall offers a more comprehensive theory of constitutional legitimacy than many recent conceptualizations. Yet more than simply uniting existing approaches to constitutional legitimacy, I demonstrate that Marbury offers a unique theory of the Constitution’s moral legitimacy as well. This analysis of Marbury invites a new appraisal of Marshall as not only a legal and political thinker, but also a constitutional theorist with a distinctive understanding of the American Constitution and its role in the early years of the republic.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
8

Santos, Michele Carvalho, and Leandro Corrêa de Oliveira. "O mito de Marbury v. Madison: a questão da fundação da supremacia judicial." Revista de Investigações Constitucionais 5, no. 3 (September 5, 2018): 325. http://dx.doi.org/10.5380/rinc.v5i3.56030.

Full text
Abstract:
Marbury desempenha um importante papel no debate sobre a legitimidade do judicial review no sistema constitucional norte-americano. Diante disso, o artigo objetiva analisar teses críticas ao uso retórico do caso com o objetivo principal de desconstruir o mito de Marbury que garantiu que o tornasse a principal fonte de reivindicação da supremacia judicial. Para tanto, analisa contribuições revisionistas a fim de identificar a atual e real causa do louvor à decisão. Tem enquanto foco demonstrar como as citações de Marbury pela Suprema Corte não são apenas para justificar o judicial review em casos controversos, mas principalmente para afirmar a superioridade ou exclusividade judicial na interpretação constitucional. No final, a análise histórica dos aspectos políticos do caso permite uma leitura contextualizada, restando claro que a decisão de Marshall afastou-se da doutrina da supremacia judicial para adotar uma postura consistente com as premissas do constitucionalismo popular.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
9

McAffee, Thomas B., and Robert Lowry Clinton. "Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review." American Journal of Legal History 36, no. 3 (July 1992): 399. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/845441.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
10

Johnson, Herbert A., Robert Lowry Clinton, and J. M. Sosin. "Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review." American Historical Review 96, no. 4 (October 1991): 1278. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2165186.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
11

Lee, Francis Graham, and Robert Lowry Clinton. "Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review." Political Science Quarterly 105, no. 2 (1990): 342. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2151051.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
12

Kelley, Sara. "Marbury versus Madison: Documents and Commentary." Government Information Quarterly 21, no. 2 (January 2004): 241–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2003.12.006.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
13

White, G. Edward. "The Constitutional Journey of "Marbury v. Madison"." Virginia Law Review 89, no. 6 (October 2003): 1463. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3202396.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
14

Kurnia, Titon Slamet. "THE THEORIZATION OF INSTITUTIONS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAWS." Mimbar Hukum - Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada 26, no. 1 (June 25, 2014): 158. http://dx.doi.org/10.22146/jmh.16061.

Full text
Abstract:
This article argues for judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation or laws. This article opines that the judiciary is more favourable in discharging the function as the guardian of the constitution than other government bodies. According to Marbury v. Madison, the judiciary enjoys the jurisdiction of judicial review to declare the unconstitutionality of legislation or laws because “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is”. Artikel ini membahas tentang pengujian yudisial konstitusionalitas undang-undang. Dalam artikel ini penulis berpendapat bahwa badan yudisial merupakan kandidat utama sebagai penjaga konstitusi ketimbang badan-badan pemerintahan yang lain. Pendapat ini didasarkan pada kasus Marbury v. Madison yang meyakini bahwa menentukan makna hukum adalah ranah dan tugas badan yudisial, termasuk dalam melakukan pengujian yudisial untuk menyatakan suatu undang-undang inkonstitusional.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
15

Lasser, William. "Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review.Robert Lowry Clinton." Journal of Politics 53, no. 1 (February 1991): 258–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2131743.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
16

Eisgruber, Christopher L. ""Marbury," Marshall, and the Politics of Constitutional Judgment." Virginia Law Review 89, no. 6 (October 2003): 1203. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3202393.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
17

Marcus, Maeva. "The Rise of Judicial Power before Marbury v. Madison." Rechtsgeschichte - Legal History 2011, no. 19 (2011): 204–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.12946/rg19/204-214.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
18

Clinton, R. L. "Precedent as Mythology: A Reinterpretation of Marbury V. Madison." American Journal of Jurisprudence 35, no. 1 (January 1, 1990): 55–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajj/35.1.55.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
19

Nelson, William E. "Marbury v. Madison and the Establishment of Judicial Autonomy." Journal of Supreme Court History 27, no. 3 (November 2002): 240–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-5818.00046.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
20

Pfander, James E. ""Marbury", Original Jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court's Supervisory Powers." Columbia Law Review 101, no. 7 (November 2001): 1515. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1123808.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
21

Fernández Segado, Francisco. "La Judicial review en la pre-Marshall Court." Teoría y Realidad Constitucional, no. 28 (June 1, 2011): 133. http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/trc.28.2011.6956.

Full text
Abstract:
The first eleven years of the United States Supreme Court show us a plural mosaic of feelings, perhaps even contradictory each other, with regard to the evaluation of the organ and its decisions. The view of a devaluated Court it is the frist feeling. The Circuit riding’s duty of the Supreme Court Justices, the short-lived of its sessions and the reduced number of its opinions are some of the reasons of this devaluation. Nevertheless, if we pay attention to the contents of some decisions, it is possible to change the feelings. Certainly, in this initial stage we don’t find noted cases nor impact opinions, but we think that it’s indisputable that some decisions contributed to the frist forging of the American constitutional system. With regard to the judicial review of the constituonality of the acts passed by Congress, we shall not be so audacious to question the Marbury v. Madison Myth, but we think that Marbury opinion involves only the formal establishment of a doctrine whose theoretical grounds and historical precedents are present not only in the No. LXXVIII of the «Federalist papers» but also in several decisions of the «pre- Marshcall Court» and in different dogmatic expositions of the first stage’s Supreme Court Justices.Los primeros once años del Tribunal Supremo norteamericano nos muestran un plural mosaico de sensaciones, quizá incluso contradictorias, en orden a la calaboración del órgano y sus decisiones. La primera de ellas es la que nos encontramos ante un órgano devaluado. La participación de los Jueces de la Corte Suprema en los Tribunales de Circuito, la corta duración de sus sesiones y el reducido número de sus sentencias, son algunas de las razones de esa devaluación. Sin embargo, si atendemos al contenido de algunas de sus decisiones, las sensaciones pueden llegar a cambiar. Desde luego, en esta etapa inicial del tribunal no nos encontramos con casos célebres ni con decisiones impactantes, pero creemos que es indiscutible, que algunas decisiones contribuyeron a la primera forja del sistema constitucional norteamericno. En relación a la revisión judicial de la constitucionalidad de las leyes aprobadas por el Congreso, no vamos a ser tan atrevidos, como para cuestionar el mito de Marbury v. Madison (1803), pero sí pensamos que la sentencia Marbury entraña tan sólo el establecimineto formal de una doctrina cuyos fundamentos teóricos se hallan presentes no sólo en el Nº LXXVIII del «Federalista», sino también en varias decisiones de la Corte anterior a Marshall y en diferentes planteamientos dogmáticos de los Jueces de esta primera etapa del Tribunal.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
22

Lyons, David. "Constitutional Interpretation and Original Meaning." Social Philosophy and Policy 4, no. 1 (1986): 75–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0265052500000443.

Full text
Abstract:
I. CONSTITUTIONAL ORIGINALISMBy “originalism” I mean the familiar approach to constitutional adjudication that accords binding authority to the text of the Constitution or the intentions of its adopters. At least since Marbury, in which Chief Justice Marshall emphasized the significance of our Constitution's being a written document, originalism in one form or another has been a major theme in the American constitutional tradition.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
23

Hoffmann-Riem, Wolfgang. "Two Hundred Years of Marbury v. Madison: The Struggle for Judicial Review of Constitutional Questions in the United States and Europe." German Law Journal 5, no. 6 (June 1, 2004): 685–701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s2071832200012797.

Full text
Abstract:
This year we celebrate a United States Supreme Court decision that marks the beginning of modern jurisdiction over constitutional questions: Marbury v. Madison. This is all the more remarkable since, when it was decided two hundred years ago in 1803, it was controversial and many still maintain it was wrongly decided. Chief Justice Marshall ruled on a dispute which he had earlier had a hand in causing, since the alleged legal error – the untimely delivery of a commission to Justice of the Peace Marbury – fell within his area of responsibility as Secretary of State. He dismissed the petition because the incorrect legal procedure had been chosen. However, he did not examine this question at the outset but – contrary to the accepted procedural rules of his time – at the end. This left room for a wide-ranging discussion of the right of judicial review, which was not required by law, and was, therefore, obiter dicta. Thomas Jefferson later referred to this discussion as the Chief Justice's “obiter dissertation.” Of course, Adams himself contended that the case turned on the judicial right of review, since this was a component of his argument that the petition should be dismissed.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
24

Glennon, Michael J. "Protecting the Court’s Institutional Interests: Why Not the Marbury Approach?" American Journal of International Law 81, no. 1 (January 1987): 121–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2202140.

Full text
Abstract:
A wise prince must rely on what is in his power and not on what is in the power of others.MachiavelliThe International Court of Justice in Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua confronted a dilemma that paralleled in many ways the one confronted by the United States Supreme Court in the famous 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. Each dispute confronted a young court that had not yet established its legitimacy; each court faced a powerful, recalcitrant defendant that challenged its right to decide the case; and each therefore seemed to face two equally unpalatable choices: avoiding the case and seeming to admit defeat, or resolving it only to have the judgment ignored. Either choice seemed to entail profound damage not only for the court as an institution but also for the legal system in which it operated.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
25

Johnson, Herbert A., and William E. Nelson. "Marbury v. Madison: The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review." American Journal of Legal History 45, no. 1 (January 2001): 107. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3185357.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
26

Amar, Akhil Reed. "Marbury, Section 13, and the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court." University of Chicago Law Review 56, no. 2 (1989): 443. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1599844.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
27

Sunstein, Cass R. "Beyond Marbury: The Executive's Power to Say What the Law Is." Yale Law Journal 115, no. 9 (January 1, 2006): 2580. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20455706.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
28

Eijsbouts, W. T. "Wir Sind das Volk: Notes About the Notion of ‘The People’ as Occasioned by the Lissabon-Urteil." European Constitutional Law Review 6, no. 2 (June 2010): 199–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1574019610200032.

Full text
Abstract:
Leipzig 1989: dissolution of the East German state people or Staatsvolk – Karlsruhe 2020: dissolution of the German people – Courts and the people as a neglected constitutional relationship – Bundesverfassungsgericht's versions of the people – Analysis of the concept of people – Forms of action – Political people breaks down into two: original and electoral people – Marbury v. Madison – Duality as a matter of doctrine and principle – Duality in Lissabon Urteil – Conflation and reduction of authority to vote – Subordination of electoral to original people – The Court's logic pushed into motion – Exposing the constitution
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
29

Jeveaux, Geovany Cardoso, and Ricardo Gueiros Bernardes Dias. "O Controle de Constitucionalidade Difuso: Uma Análise de sua Origem e da Modulação de seus Efeitos no Espaço." Conpedi Law Review 1, no. 3 (May 31, 2016): 124. http://dx.doi.org/10.26668/2448-3931_conpedilawreview/2015.v1i3.3401.

Full text
Abstract:
O presente estudo visa a realizar uma abordagem acerca da origem do controle difuso de constitucionalidade, ao analisar, de forma crítica, o significado histórico e político do caso Marbury vs Madison, assim como do período que o antecede. Essa análise tem por objetivo desmitificar o parâmetro inicial dessa espécie de controle. Além disso, realiza- se uma investigação detalhada sobre as decisões do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) a respeito dos efeitos no espaço no tocante ao controle difuso de constitucionalidade, notadamente quanto aos aspectos transcendentes, vinculantes e erga omnes das decisões proferidas.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
30

Черняк, Є. В. "Судова справа Marbury v. Madison як головне джерело американської доктрини судового перегляду." Вісник Київського національного університету імені Тараса Шевченка. Юридичні науки, Вип. 52/55 (2003): 82–84.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
31

Rose, Winfield H. "Marbury v. Madison: How John Marshall Changed History by Misquoting the Constitution." Political Science and Politics 36, no. 02 (April 2003): 209–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1049096503002099.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
32

Frankel, Jr., Robert P. "Before Marbury : Hylton v. United States and the Origins of Judicial Review." Journal of Supreme Court History 28, no. 1 (March 2003): 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-5818.00052.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
33

García Mansilla, Manuel José. "Marbury v. Madison y los mitos acerca del control judicial de constitucionalidad." Revista Jurídica Austral 01, no. 01 (June 26, 2020): 9–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.26422/rja.2020.0101.gar.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
34

Gerber, Scott D., and Paul W. Kahn. "The Reign of Law: Marbury v. Madison and the Construction of America." Journal of American History 84, no. 4 (March 1998): 1494. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2568129.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
35

Vargas Lima, Alan E. "Caso “Marbury Vs. Madison” en la enseñanza del Derecho Constitucional en Bolivia." Revista Lex 3, no. 8 (April 1, 2020): 83–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.33996/revistalex.v3i8.48.

Full text
Abstract:
El pasado 24 de febrero, se ha cumplido un aniversario más del nacimiento del sistema de control jurisdiccional difuso de constitucionalidad; y hago propicia esta oportunidad para poder repasar algunos rasgos esenciales sobre sus orígenes y su naturaleza jurídica, poniendo de relieve algunas de las características más importantes que lo distinguen de otros sistemas de control, para luego hacer énfasis acerca de su vigencia poco efectiva en Bolivia, lo que ciertamente contrasta con su enorme influencia y utilidad para la enseñanza del Derecho Constitucional.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
36

Nasir, Cholidin. "JUDICIAL REVIEW DI AMERIKA SERIKAT, JERMAN, DAN INDONESIA." Jurnal Hukum Progresif 8, no. 1 (April 30, 2020): 67–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.14710/hp.8.1.67-80.

Full text
Abstract:
Judicial review merupakan mekanisme untuk menguji norma hukum terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar. Amerika Serikat merupakan negara yang pertama kali melakukan judicial review melalui kasus Marbury vs Madison, yang kemudian merambah ke negara-negara Eropa, salah satunya adalah Jerman, namun dalam mengadili judicial review kedua negara tersebut memiliki perbedaan. Peninjauan kembali yang diadili oleh Mahkamah Agung Amerika Serikat tidak mendengarkan undang-undang secara langsung tetapi melalui kasus yang konkret, sedangkan Mahkamah Konstitusi Federal Jerman dapat mengadili undang-undang tersebut bertentangan dengan Konstitusi. Adapun di Indonesia menganut hal yang sama dengan Jerman yaitu Mahkamah Konstitusi mengadili langsung undang-undang tersebut terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
37

Zoller, Élisabeth. "Les deux Constitutions de John Marshall : une relecture de l’arrêt Marbury v. Madison." Revue française de droit constitutionnel N°123, no. 3 (2020): 521. http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/rfdc.123.0521.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
38

Kirk, Robin. "Painted on the Surface: The Marbury Lens and Gore in Young Adult Fiction." ALAN Review 43, no. 1 (September 22, 2015): 15–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.21061/alan.v43i1.a.2.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
39

Zoller, Élisabeth. "Les deux constitutions de John Marshall : une relecture de l’arrêt Marbury v. Madison." Droits 70, no. 2 (2019): 121. http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/droit.070.0121.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
40

Casagrande, Cássio Luís, and Dalton Robert Tibúrcio. "Marbury v. Madison: uma decisão política de manter a corte fora da política." A&C - Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional 19, no. 76 (September 17, 2019): 199. http://dx.doi.org/10.21056/aec.v19i76.1008.

Full text
Abstract:
O presente artigo analisa o caso Marbury v. Madison, decidido pela Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos, em 1803, com destaque para o seu contexto histórico. A partir das repercussões da eleição presidencial americana de 1800, o texto busca compreender as contradições, limitações e o legado do caso, bem como sua repercussão imediata e ao longo da história. A compreensão da distinção feita pela decisão da Corte entre questões de direito e questões políticas exige um olhar histórico do ambiente em que o caso se produziu. Atento ao papel da História do Direito de revelar as complexidades escondidas dos mitos consagrados no discurso jurídico, o artigo investiga as lacunas deixados pela decisão do caso. A hipótese a ser verifica é a de que a dimensão da judicial review que emerge do caso tem um caráter limitado, permitindo à Corte o balanceamento no uso de seus poderes.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
41

Carrigan, Martin D. "The Supreme Courts Decision On The Affordable Care Act: Abrogating Article III Of The Constitution." Journal of Business Case Studies (JBCS) 9, no. 1 (December 26, 2012): 79–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.19030/jbcs.v9i1.7548.

Full text
Abstract:
In National Federation of Independent Business v. Katherine Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Case No. 11393, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed most of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA). In holding the ACA as valid (constitutional), Chief Justice Roberts reasoned that the taxing power in the U.S. Constitution was the reason that the law was enforceable. Although a strong dissent on such reasoning was written by four other Justices, Roberts also wrote that laws are entrusted to our nations elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. [1]Roberts also wrote that the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution did not give Congress authority to pass the ACA. Moreover, Congress could not impose unfunded mandates on the States to expand Medicaid. In so writing, Roberts disposed of the chief arguments of those in favor of the law and provided a bone to those who opposed it. But, by then holding that Congress taxing power was sufficient to uphold the law, Roberts ignored the Federal Anti-Injunction statute and called into question the ability of the Supreme Court to hold a law passed by Congress entirely unconstitutional. By writing that, in effect, the Court should defer to Acts of Congress, Roberts attempted a finesse first exercised by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. While it may seem as if he intended to demonstrate the same legal adroitness of Marbury, instead he deferred to the wishes of Congress, going through legal gymnastics to uphold a law that many scholars saw as indefensible, and damaged the power of the Supreme Court given to it in Article III immeasurably.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
42

Alvarez, Jose E. "Judging the Security Council." American Journal of International Law 90, no. 1 (January 1996): 1–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2203749.

Full text
Abstract:
Should the International Court of Justice (ICJ) “judicially review” Security Council decisions? The question, once fanciful, is now being asked seriously by litigants in and judges on the World Court, nonpermanent members of the Security Council that consider it an “undemocratic” body acting as “a cloak for a new form of imperialism,” and scholars worried about its recent “quasi-legislative” or “quasi-judicial” acts. The recent throng of commentators and advocates includes students of realpolitik warning the Court against any unrealistic attempt to transform the United Nations collective security scheme into a constitutional structure of checks and balances, and legalists grasping hopefully for hints of Marbury v. Madison in recent World Court pronouncements.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
43

O'Fallon, James M. "The Case of Benjamin More: A Lost Episode in the Struggle over Repeal of the 1801 Judiciary Act." Law and History Review 11, no. 1 (1993): 43–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/743599.

Full text
Abstract:
On March 16, 1801, President Jefferson issued commissions to fifteen men to serve as justices of the peace for the County of Washington in the District of Columbia. Thirteen of the fifteen were among twenty-three justices of the peace who had been nominated by President Adams and confirmed on his last day in office. Benjamin Moore was one of two original Jefferson appointees; among the Adams appointees left off the list was William Marbury. Thus were set in motion two cases in which the Supreme Court would have an opportunity to address issues central to the great controversy over repeal of the 1801 Judiciary Act. In both cases, the Court ducked.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
44

Beširević, Violeta. "Making Sense of the Political Question Doctrine: The Case of Kosovo." Review of Central and East European Law 46, no. 1 (February 24, 2021): 91–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15730352-bja10041.

Full text
Abstract:
Abstract Ever since it was announced in Madison v. Marbury, and articulated in Baker v. Carr, the political question doctrine that tends to exclude ‘mega politics’ from judicial check has been a controversial tool of judicial abstention. Not only that it is not universally applied, but it seems also to be losing significance even in countries of its usual influence due to extensive judicialization of ‘mega politics,’ which implies that there is no claim which the courts will not hear. Based on the judicialization of the Kosovo conflict, this paper shows why the doctrine deserves to be revived and even transplanted in jurisdictions outside its usual reach, particularly in disputes regarding real-life unilateral secession.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
45

Fallon, Richard H. "Marbury and the Constitutional Mind: A Bicentennial Essay on the Wages of Doctrinal Tension." California Law Review 91, no. 1 (January 2003): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3481382.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
46

O’Neill, Johnathan. "Marbury v Madison at 200: Revisionist Scholarship and the Legitimacy of American Judicial Review." Modern Law Review 65, no. 5 (September 2002): 792–802. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.00409.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
47

Alfange,, Dean. "Marbury v Madison and Original Understandings of Judicial Review: In Defense of Traditional Wisdom." Supreme Court Review 1993 (January 1993): 329–446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/scr.1993.3109583.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
48

SANTIAGO, Marcus Firmino. "Marbury vs. Madison: uma revisão da decisão chave para o controle jurisdicional de constitucionalidade." Passagens: Revista Internacional de História Política e Cultura Jurídica 7, no. 2 (May 31, 2015): 277–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.15175/1984-2503-20157204.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
49

Barboza, Estefania Maria de Queiroz, and Katya Kozicki. "O Judicial Review e o ativismo judicial da Suprema Corte americana na proteção de direitos fundamentais." Espaço Jurídico Journal of Law [EJJL] 17, no. 3 (December 20, 2016): 733–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.18593/ejjl.v17i3.8750.

Full text
Abstract:
Resumo: No presente artigo examinaram-se as origens históricas do judicial review nos Estados Unidos da América desde o caso Marbury v. Madison até a Corte Burger, bem como os reflexos de sua concepção no chamado “ativismo judicial” norte-americano, o qual acabou por priorizar o papel da jurisdição constitucional na proteção dos direitos fundamentais garantidos na Constituição, mesmo que isso implicasse enfrentar questões tipicamente políticas. Ou seja, apresentaram-se casos nos quais a Suprema Corte atuou de forma ativista especialmente na proteção de direitos fundamentais, embora em outros momentos tenha atuado justamente no sentido contrário, como na Era Lochner, numa postura conservadora em relação à proteção de direitos. Palavras-chave: Ativismo judicial. Suprema Corte. Estados Unidos. Judicial Review.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
50

Harrington, Matthew P. "“Saying What the Law Is”: Marbury v Madison's Expansion of the Idea of Judicial Review." Judicial Review 16, no. 2 (June 2011): 142–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.5235/108546811796167785.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
You might also be interested in the bibliographies on the topic 'Marbury' for other source types:
Dissertations / Theses Books
We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!

To the bibliography