What do you think?
Rate this book
Marbury v. Madison: The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review
We take for granted today the tremendous power of the Supreme Court to interpret our laws and overrule any found in conflict with the Constitution. Yet our nation was a quarter-century old before that power of "judicial review" was fully articulated by the Court itself in Marbury v. Madison (1803). William Nelson's concise study of that landmark case provides an insightful and readable guide for students and general readers alike.
On the surface, the case itself seems a minor one at best. William Marbury, a last-minute judicial appointee of outgoing Federalist president John Adams, demanded redress from the Supreme Court when his commission was not delivered. But Chief Justice John Marshall could clearly see the danger his demand posed for a weak court filled with Federalist judges. Wary of the Court's standing with the new Republican administration of Thomas Jefferson, Marshall hit upon a solution that was both principled and pragmatic. He determined that while Marbury was justified in his suit, the law on which his claim was based was in conflict with the Constitution. It was the first time that the Court struck down an act of Congress as unconstitutional, thus establishing the doctrine of judicial review, which designates the Court as chief interpreter of the Constitution.
Nelson relates the story behind Marbury and explains why it is a foundational case for understanding the Supreme Court. He reveals how Marshall deftly avoided a dangerous political confrontation between the executive and judicial branches by upholding the rule of law. He also shows how Marshall managed to shore up the Court's prestige and power rather than have it serve partisan political agendas.
Nelson clarifies how the Marshall court sought to preserve what was best in eighteenth-century constitutionalism while accommodating nineteenth-century political realities and also traces the gradual transformation of Marbury-style judicial review since Marshall's time.
Although the Supreme Court did not assert its power of judicial review for another fifty-four years after Marbury, it has since then invalidated numerous acts of Congress. From Marshall's modest bid for consensus to what some consider the modern Court's "activist" excesses, judicial review has been a cornerstone in the edifice of the federal judiciary. Nelson's analysis helps us better understand how this fundamental principle emerged and why it still matters.
On the surface, the case itself seems a minor one at best. William Marbury, a last-minute judicial appointee of outgoing Federalist president John Adams, demanded redress from the Supreme Court when his commission was not delivered. But Chief Justice John Marshall could clearly see the danger his demand posed for a weak court filled with Federalist judges. Wary of the Court's standing with the new Republican administration of Thomas Jefferson, Marshall hit upon a solution that was both principled and pragmatic. He determined that while Marbury was justified in his suit, the law on which his claim was based was in conflict with the Constitution. It was the first time that the Court struck down an act of Congress as unconstitutional, thus establishing the doctrine of judicial review, which designates the Court as chief interpreter of the Constitution.
Nelson relates the story behind Marbury and explains why it is a foundational case for understanding the Supreme Court. He reveals how Marshall deftly avoided a dangerous political confrontation between the executive and judicial branches by upholding the rule of law. He also shows how Marshall managed to shore up the Court's prestige and power rather than have it serve partisan political agendas.
Nelson clarifies how the Marshall court sought to preserve what was best in eighteenth-century constitutionalism while accommodating nineteenth-century political realities and also traces the gradual transformation of Marbury-style judicial review since Marshall's time.
Although the Supreme Court did not assert its power of judicial review for another fifty-four years after Marbury, it has since then invalidated numerous acts of Congress. From Marshall's modest bid for consensus to what some consider the modern Court's "activist" excesses, judicial review has been a cornerstone in the edifice of the federal judiciary. Nelson's analysis helps us better understand how this fundamental principle emerged and why it still matters.
160 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
6 people are currently reading
67 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
October 14, 2019
I read this book concurrently with Without Precedent: Chief Justice John Marshall and His Times, and it was terrifically helpful. Nelson describes judicial review in the 18th C and how Marshall's decision in Marbury V Madison 19th C changed the role of the Supreme Court to one that tried to separate politics from law and the Constitution. Meaning the Court would avoid getting involved in politics! Later Judicial review ends of protecting minorities and post WWII judicial review spreads across the world.
February 18, 2017
This is well-written. Nelson is concise in 125 pages, but gives a good amount of context to the background surrounding Marbury v. Madison and the way that judicial review has evolved since the decision. It's very accessible to the general audience that the book is intended for both in language and in content.
One problem that more academic readers of Nelson’s book will come across is Nelson’s use of sources vs. the editors’ choice to not include formal citations throughout the text. It's understandable that the editors want the book to appeal to a general audience who would be largely unconcerned with what sources Nelson is citing, and both Nelson and the editors can safely assume that if an academic reader wishes to know more about Nelson’s research and interpretive process, they could start by reading Nelson’s three articles that the book is based on.
One problem that more academic readers of Nelson’s book will come across is Nelson’s use of sources vs. the editors’ choice to not include formal citations throughout the text. It's understandable that the editors want the book to appeal to a general audience who would be largely unconcerned with what sources Nelson is citing, and both Nelson and the editors can safely assume that if an academic reader wishes to know more about Nelson’s research and interpretive process, they could start by reading Nelson’s three articles that the book is based on.
February 16, 2021
Good at explaining the decision in context -and how Marshall's idea of judicial review is different from the understanding of judicial review we have today. What was once deliberately apolitical is now why the SCOTUS is understood as a political body more than a judicial one.
My favorite parts were when Nelson traces the early 18th century cases where judicial review first appears.
My favorite parts were when Nelson traces the early 18th century cases where judicial review first appears.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews