What do you think?
Rate this book
The Activist: John Marshall, "Marbury v. Madison", and the Myth of Judicial Review
The story of the landmark case that put the "Supreme" in Supreme Court.
Among the many momentous decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, none has had a greater impact than that passed down in 1803 by Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Marbury v. Madison. While the ruling itself was innocuous—denying the plea of a minor functionary named William Marbury on constitutionally technical grounds—its implications were enormous. For Marshall had, in essence, claimed for the Supreme Court the right to determine what the Constitution and our laws under it really mean, known formally as the principle of "judicial review." Yet, as Lawrence Goldstone shows in his compelling narrative, that right is nowhere expressed in the Constitution and was not even considered by the Framers or the Founding Fathers, who would never have granted such power in a checks-and-balances system to unelected officials serving for life.
The Activist underscores the drama that occurred in 1803 by examining the debates that took place during the Constitutional Convention of 1787—among the most dramatic moments in American history—over the formation and structure of our judicial system. In parallel, Goldstone introduces in brief the life and ambition of John Marshall, and the early, fragile years of the Supreme Court, which—until Marshall's ascension to Chief Justice—sat atop the weakest of the three branches of government. Marshall made the Court supreme, and while judicial review has been used sparingly, without it the Court would likely never have intervened in the 2000 presidential election. Indeed, the great irony Goldstone reveals is that judicial review is now so enfranchised that Justice Antonin Scalia could admit, as he has, that the Supreme Court "made it up" in the same breath as he insists that justices must adhere steadfastly to the exact words of the Constitution.
Nobody brings the debates of the Constitutional Convention to life as does Lawrence Goldstone, and in this election year, no more interesting book on the Supreme Court will appear than The Activist, which makes the past come alive in the present.
Among the many momentous decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, none has had a greater impact than that passed down in 1803 by Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Marbury v. Madison. While the ruling itself was innocuous—denying the plea of a minor functionary named William Marbury on constitutionally technical grounds—its implications were enormous. For Marshall had, in essence, claimed for the Supreme Court the right to determine what the Constitution and our laws under it really mean, known formally as the principle of "judicial review." Yet, as Lawrence Goldstone shows in his compelling narrative, that right is nowhere expressed in the Constitution and was not even considered by the Framers or the Founding Fathers, who would never have granted such power in a checks-and-balances system to unelected officials serving for life.
The Activist underscores the drama that occurred in 1803 by examining the debates that took place during the Constitutional Convention of 1787—among the most dramatic moments in American history—over the formation and structure of our judicial system. In parallel, Goldstone introduces in brief the life and ambition of John Marshall, and the early, fragile years of the Supreme Court, which—until Marshall's ascension to Chief Justice—sat atop the weakest of the three branches of government. Marshall made the Court supreme, and while judicial review has been used sparingly, without it the Court would likely never have intervened in the 2000 presidential election. Indeed, the great irony Goldstone reveals is that judicial review is now so enfranchised that Justice Antonin Scalia could admit, as he has, that the Supreme Court "made it up" in the same breath as he insists that justices must adhere steadfastly to the exact words of the Constitution.
Nobody brings the debates of the Constitutional Convention to life as does Lawrence Goldstone, and in this election year, no more interesting book on the Supreme Court will appear than The Activist, which makes the past come alive in the present.
304 pages, Hardcover
First published September 2, 2008
About the author
Lawrence Goldstone
36 books198 followersLawrence Goldstone is the author of fourteen books of both fiction and non-fiction. Six of those books were co-authored with his wife, Nancy, but they now write separately to save what is left of their dishes.
Goldstone's articles, reviews, and opinion pieces have appeared in, among other publications, the Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Miami Herald, Hartford Courant, and Berkshire Eagle. He has also written for a number of magazines that have gone bust, although he denies any cause and effect.
His first novel, Rights, won a New American Writing Award but he now cringes at its awkward prose. (Anatomy of Deception and The Astronomer are much better.)
Despite a seemingly incurable tendency to say what's on his mind (thus mortifying Nancy), Goldstone has been widely interviewed on both radio and television, with appearances on, among others, "Fresh Air" (NPR), "To the Best of Our Knowledge" (NPR), "The Faith Middleton Show" (NPR), "Tavis Smiley" (PBS), and Leonard Lopate (WNYC). His work has also been profiled in The New York Times, The Toronto Star, numerous regional newspapers, Salon, and Slate.
Goldstone holds a PhD in American Constitutional Studies from the New School. His friends thus call him DrG, although he can barely touch the rim. (Sigh. Can't make a layup anymore either.) He and his beloved bride founded and ran an innovative series of parent-child book groups, which they documented in Deconstructing Penguins. He has also been a teacher, lecturer, senior member of a Wall Street trading firm, taxi driver, actor, quiz show contestant, and policy analyst at the Hudson Institute.
He is a unerring stock picker. Everything he buys instantly goes down.
Goldstone's articles, reviews, and opinion pieces have appeared in, among other publications, the Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Miami Herald, Hartford Courant, and Berkshire Eagle. He has also written for a number of magazines that have gone bust, although he denies any cause and effect.
His first novel, Rights, won a New American Writing Award but he now cringes at its awkward prose. (Anatomy of Deception and The Astronomer are much better.)
Despite a seemingly incurable tendency to say what's on his mind (thus mortifying Nancy), Goldstone has been widely interviewed on both radio and television, with appearances on, among others, "Fresh Air" (NPR), "To the Best of Our Knowledge" (NPR), "The Faith Middleton Show" (NPR), "Tavis Smiley" (PBS), and Leonard Lopate (WNYC). His work has also been profiled in The New York Times, The Toronto Star, numerous regional newspapers, Salon, and Slate.
Goldstone holds a PhD in American Constitutional Studies from the New School. His friends thus call him DrG, although he can barely touch the rim. (Sigh. Can't make a layup anymore either.) He and his beloved bride founded and ran an innovative series of parent-child book groups, which they documented in Deconstructing Penguins. He has also been a teacher, lecturer, senior member of a Wall Street trading firm, taxi driver, actor, quiz show contestant, and policy analyst at the Hudson Institute.
He is a unerring stock picker. Everything he buys instantly goes down.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
April 21, 2014
Goldstone creates a fantastic, extremely readable narrative concerning the founding of the US and its early growing pains. This books manages the tricky task of covering a broad range of time and people while still keeping the reader interested.
There are, however, some fundamental flaws with this book. First, the premise that the Constitution doesn't inherently include the power of judicial review is not fully supported by his argument. Goldstone asserts that judicial review wasn't discussed at the Constitutional Convention only to proceed to quote George Mason discussing judicial review at the Constitutional Convention. Furthermore, the last 20 pages or so of the book devolve into what feels like a personal attack on Marshall and Originalists. It is an unfortunate ending to an otherwise enjoyable book.
Taken together it is a great view of the politics of the early US from 30,000 feet.
There are, however, some fundamental flaws with this book. First, the premise that the Constitution doesn't inherently include the power of judicial review is not fully supported by his argument. Goldstone asserts that judicial review wasn't discussed at the Constitutional Convention only to proceed to quote George Mason discussing judicial review at the Constitutional Convention. Furthermore, the last 20 pages or so of the book devolve into what feels like a personal attack on Marshall and Originalists. It is an unfortunate ending to an otherwise enjoyable book.
Taken together it is a great view of the politics of the early US from 30,000 feet.
July 28, 2014
Goldstone presents a history of the US Constitution and the Supreme Court as he reviews the concept of judicial review as exercised by the US Supreme Court starting with Chief Justice John Marshall. Much of the discussion hinges on the cases of Marbury vs Madison and Stuart vs Laird, both of which opinions are in the appendixes. This work is an excellent source on the Constitution.
September 8, 2020
Finished reading this last week and only read 237 pages (all the chapters, but neither of the appendices). Tried reading the opinion of Marbury V. Madison, but it's pretty dense. The book was really good, but upon reading, Marbury wasn't the first case that dealt with Judicial Review. Maybe the first one that struck down a federal law, but judicial review was a thing before this case.
I think Goldstone did a really good job showing how clever Marshall was was this case and opinion. On one hand, you have Madison and Jefferson basically saying, "We don't care what you do, we aren't going to pay attention to you anyways." And Marshall is able to bypass them by saying, "I'm going to take away some power of the supreme court, but only by claiming a tremendous amount of power at the same time." By taking away the right of the supreme court to issue writs of mandamus through judicial review, he was challenging Madison and Jefferson. They choose to be quiet and let the opinion stand because the alternative was to force the supreme court to issue the writ of mandamus, which was the exact opposite of what they wanted to do.
I think Goldstone takes some leaps though. Lack of evidence doesn't prove anything. The minutes from the constitutional convention weren't saved, so we don't know if they ever talked about judicial review, and Hamilton wrote about judicial review in Federalist 78. It may not be exactly the same thing, but it wasn't like it was a completely new legal theory.
Also, who else would review the laws of the country if not the courts? If congress passed two contradictory laws, and a court case makes it through to the SCOTUS, what alternative is there than to strike down a law as unconstitutional? The only "leap" that Marshall and the court took was actually making the decision of which law was unconstitutional. I guess they could have decided not to make a ruling, leaving the case in some sort of legal limbo, while notifying Congress and the President that they won't make decision until they get their shit together. And it's not even a leap when their job is to make decisions. It's not like they flipped a coin and decided that heads was constitutional. If there are two contradictory laws, the supreme court is the ideal court for figuring out which of the laws is unconstitutional, and why.
I think Goldstone did a really good job showing how clever Marshall was was this case and opinion. On one hand, you have Madison and Jefferson basically saying, "We don't care what you do, we aren't going to pay attention to you anyways." And Marshall is able to bypass them by saying, "I'm going to take away some power of the supreme court, but only by claiming a tremendous amount of power at the same time." By taking away the right of the supreme court to issue writs of mandamus through judicial review, he was challenging Madison and Jefferson. They choose to be quiet and let the opinion stand because the alternative was to force the supreme court to issue the writ of mandamus, which was the exact opposite of what they wanted to do.
I think Goldstone takes some leaps though. Lack of evidence doesn't prove anything. The minutes from the constitutional convention weren't saved, so we don't know if they ever talked about judicial review, and Hamilton wrote about judicial review in Federalist 78. It may not be exactly the same thing, but it wasn't like it was a completely new legal theory.
Also, who else would review the laws of the country if not the courts? If congress passed two contradictory laws, and a court case makes it through to the SCOTUS, what alternative is there than to strike down a law as unconstitutional? The only "leap" that Marshall and the court took was actually making the decision of which law was unconstitutional. I guess they could have decided not to make a ruling, leaving the case in some sort of legal limbo, while notifying Congress and the President that they won't make decision until they get their shit together. And it's not even a leap when their job is to make decisions. It's not like they flipped a coin and decided that heads was constitutional. If there are two contradictory laws, the supreme court is the ideal court for figuring out which of the laws is unconstitutional, and why.
September 7, 2024
A wonderful history of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision Marbury v. Madison in 1803, which established the principle of judicial review (the ability of SCOTUS to strike down a law as unconstitutional). Goldstone doesn't hide his opinion about the case, repeatedly asserting that it was an audacious power grab by Chief Justice John Marshall. It's even implied in the title.
The case was about midnight judiciary appointments by outgoing President John Adams in 1801, who lost to Thomas Jefferson in the 1800 election. Adams appointed several dozen Federalist judges and justices of the peace just two days before the end of his term. Secretary of State John Marshall failed to deliver some of the commissions, including one for William Marbury from Maryland. Oddly, Marshall was also acting Chief Justice of SCOTUS since February 4, 1801, but agreed to continue serving as Secretary of State until Adams’ term ended. After Jefferson was inaugurated as president on March 4, he instructed James Madison, his newly appointed Secretary of State, to withhold the undelivered commissions. In December 1801, Marbury sued Madison in SCOTUS to request a court order to remedy the matter. Chief Justice John Marshall elected to hear the case despite an obvious conflict (he was the official who failed to deliver Marbury’s commission) and despite lack of jurisdiction to remedy the case (as he later ruled).
To resolve the case in Solomonic fashion (that is, pleasing Federalists by ruling that the Marbury appointment was legal while also pleasing Democratic-Republicans by denying Marbury the court order he requested), Marshall struck down Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, thereby inventing the power of judicial review out of thin air. Surprisingly, in Chapter 1, Goldstone writes that the late Justice Antonin Scalia agreed. Let that sink in: A blowhard "originalist" asserted that SCOTUS invented the power of judicial review just so the court could assume powers not granted to it and consequently strike down laws they didn't like in a highly arbitrary and inconsistent manner. That is Scalia's legacy, a shady and politically-tainted SCOTUS. It’s only fitting that Scalia died in bed without his wife while staying free of charge as the guest of a secret society of elite hunters at Cibolo Creek Ranch in Texas in 2016. Good riddance.
Goldstone's narrative is surprisingly lively, indeed cinematic. It would actually make a compelling movie or documentary. A lot of people say that today's political climate in the United States is the most polarized ever. Um, people should read a bit more history, particularly about the divisive election of 1800. The resulting tie in electoral votes for Jefferson and Aaron Burr was ultimately broken by a vote in the outgoing House of Representatives on the 36th ballot.
In the appendices, Goldstone includes the full decisions for Marbury v. Madison and Stuart v. Laird, a case decided one week after Marbury involving the constitutionality of the Judiciary Act of 1802. Goldstone might as well have included the original U.S. Constitution (sans amendments), which is only four pages long.
Suggest that all readers of this book give a careful reading of Article III. Here it is in full:
As you can see, judicial review is clearly unconstitutional. There's no mention of it at all in Article III.
Although the U.S. Constitution never assigned the power of judicial review to SCOTUS, the concept was clearly known by the founders, including Alexander Hamilton, who discussed judicial review in Federalist 78. Also, several state supreme courts had already been practicing judicial review before 1793, striking down state laws that conflicted with state constitutions. So the concept of judicial review was well known before the Marbury v. Madison decision. It's puzzling that the U.S. Constitution never mentioned it. Alas, the founding fathers weren’t perfect, which is why the U.S. Constitution has 27 amendments.
Goldstone notes in his conclusion that Marshall's power grab should not have gone unanswered by President Jefferson and Congress. If SCOTUS audaciously claims the unconstitutional power of judicial review, then it's clear that additional restraints on it are needed. For example, term limits or a three-fourths vote of Congress to override a SCOTUS decision. I support both of those restrictions, in addition to the imposition of a strict code of ethics. Time to end SCOTUS's longstanding practice of legislating from the bench and violating the standard code of conduct for U.S. judges.
The case was about midnight judiciary appointments by outgoing President John Adams in 1801, who lost to Thomas Jefferson in the 1800 election. Adams appointed several dozen Federalist judges and justices of the peace just two days before the end of his term. Secretary of State John Marshall failed to deliver some of the commissions, including one for William Marbury from Maryland. Oddly, Marshall was also acting Chief Justice of SCOTUS since February 4, 1801, but agreed to continue serving as Secretary of State until Adams’ term ended. After Jefferson was inaugurated as president on March 4, he instructed James Madison, his newly appointed Secretary of State, to withhold the undelivered commissions. In December 1801, Marbury sued Madison in SCOTUS to request a court order to remedy the matter. Chief Justice John Marshall elected to hear the case despite an obvious conflict (he was the official who failed to deliver Marbury’s commission) and despite lack of jurisdiction to remedy the case (as he later ruled).
To resolve the case in Solomonic fashion (that is, pleasing Federalists by ruling that the Marbury appointment was legal while also pleasing Democratic-Republicans by denying Marbury the court order he requested), Marshall struck down Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, thereby inventing the power of judicial review out of thin air. Surprisingly, in Chapter 1, Goldstone writes that the late Justice Antonin Scalia agreed. Let that sink in: A blowhard "originalist" asserted that SCOTUS invented the power of judicial review just so the court could assume powers not granted to it and consequently strike down laws they didn't like in a highly arbitrary and inconsistent manner. That is Scalia's legacy, a shady and politically-tainted SCOTUS. It’s only fitting that Scalia died in bed without his wife while staying free of charge as the guest of a secret society of elite hunters at Cibolo Creek Ranch in Texas in 2016. Good riddance.
Goldstone's narrative is surprisingly lively, indeed cinematic. It would actually make a compelling movie or documentary. A lot of people say that today's political climate in the United States is the most polarized ever. Um, people should read a bit more history, particularly about the divisive election of 1800. The resulting tie in electoral votes for Jefferson and Aaron Burr was ultimately broken by a vote in the outgoing House of Representatives on the 36th ballot.
In the appendices, Goldstone includes the full decisions for Marbury v. Madison and Stuart v. Laird, a case decided one week after Marbury involving the constitutionality of the Judiciary Act of 1802. Goldstone might as well have included the original U.S. Constitution (sans amendments), which is only four pages long.
Suggest that all readers of this book give a careful reading of Article III. Here it is in full:
Article III.
Section 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
As you can see, judicial review is clearly unconstitutional. There's no mention of it at all in Article III.
Although the U.S. Constitution never assigned the power of judicial review to SCOTUS, the concept was clearly known by the founders, including Alexander Hamilton, who discussed judicial review in Federalist 78. Also, several state supreme courts had already been practicing judicial review before 1793, striking down state laws that conflicted with state constitutions. So the concept of judicial review was well known before the Marbury v. Madison decision. It's puzzling that the U.S. Constitution never mentioned it. Alas, the founding fathers weren’t perfect, which is why the U.S. Constitution has 27 amendments.
Goldstone notes in his conclusion that Marshall's power grab should not have gone unanswered by President Jefferson and Congress. If SCOTUS audaciously claims the unconstitutional power of judicial review, then it's clear that additional restraints on it are needed. For example, term limits or a three-fourths vote of Congress to override a SCOTUS decision. I support both of those restrictions, in addition to the imposition of a strict code of ethics. Time to end SCOTUS's longstanding practice of legislating from the bench and violating the standard code of conduct for U.S. judges.
October 1, 2023
The Writer Lawerence Goldstone published The Activist: John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, and the Myth of Judicial Review is a study and an opinion piece of Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Goldstone published The Activist in 2008. Goldstone has a “Ph.D. in American Constitutional Studies” (Goldstone 295). I read the book on my Kindle. Goldstone’s degree was from the New School for Social Research in New York City (Goldstone 2023). The book has two appendixes, a section of notes, and a “Select Bibliography” (Goldstone 282-283). One appendix contains Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in the Case of Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803). The other appendix is the opinion of Justice William Paterson in the case of Stuart v. Laird 5 U.S. 299 (1803). Marbury v. Madison and Stuart v. Laird are related cases. Marbury v. Madison established the concept of judicial review in the United States. The concept of judicial review can be defined by the idea of “the power of a court to determine the constitutionality of a statute or other law” (Statsky 286). The other part of the concept of judicial review is “the power of a court to determine the correctness of what a lower tribunal has done” (Stasky 286). Many of the reviewers of Goldstone’s The Activist would agree with the review of The Publishers Weekly “is a readable, if opinionated, tour of the origins of judicial review. It's hard to make sense of the term “myth” in the book's subtitle, given that judicial review has become the basis of American constitutional law. Still, the book is a valuable review of a complex subject” (The Publishers Weekly). Goldstone’s book, The Activist, was an interesting book.
Works Cited:
Goldstone, Lawrence. 2023. “Bio.” The Official Website Web Site of Author Lawrence Goldstone. Accessed October 1, 2023. Bio - Lawrence Goldstone
Statsky, William P. 2016. Introduction to Paralegalism: Perspectives, Problems, and Skills. Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage.
The Publishers Weekly. 2008, August 4. Review of The Activist: John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, and the Myth of Judicial Review. The Publishers Weekly. The Activist: John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, and the Myth of Judicial Review (publishersweekly.com)
Works Cited:
Goldstone, Lawrence. 2023. “Bio.” The Official Website Web Site of Author Lawrence Goldstone. Accessed October 1, 2023. Bio - Lawrence Goldstone
Statsky, William P. 2016. Introduction to Paralegalism: Perspectives, Problems, and Skills. Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage.
The Publishers Weekly. 2008, August 4. Review of The Activist: John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, and the Myth of Judicial Review. The Publishers Weekly. The Activist: John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, and the Myth of Judicial Review (publishersweekly.com)
February 12, 2025
A nice summary of a case that has become hugely important with Donald Trump now in a constitutional stand-off with the judiciary.
As Goldstone outlines, an 1803 dispute over an undelivered commission for a judgeship became one of the most significant legal decisions in American history. The Supreme Court's ruling in Marbury v. Madison established the doctrine of judicial review--that the judiciary has the final say interpreting the constitution and legislation.
The case emerged from tension between outgoing president John Adams and incoming president Thomas Jefferson. Late in his presidency, Adams appointed numerous "midnight judges," including William Marbury. Marbury's commission was never delivered before Jefferson took office.
When Jefferson became president, he instructed Secretary of State James Madison to withhold Marbury's commission. Marbury sued. The case raised several questions:
Did Marbury have a right to the commission?
If he had a right, was there a remedy?
Could the Supreme Court decide this?
Chief Justice Marshall concluded that Marbury did indeed have a right to his commission and that the law should provide a remedy when such a right is violated. In issuing this decision--against the sitting president--Marshall established the power of courts to review the constitutionality of laws and declare them void if they conflict with the Constitution:
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is... If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each."
This has been respected by all three branches of government ever since. We'll see if it continues to be during Trump's second presidency.
As Goldstone outlines, an 1803 dispute over an undelivered commission for a judgeship became one of the most significant legal decisions in American history. The Supreme Court's ruling in Marbury v. Madison established the doctrine of judicial review--that the judiciary has the final say interpreting the constitution and legislation.
The case emerged from tension between outgoing president John Adams and incoming president Thomas Jefferson. Late in his presidency, Adams appointed numerous "midnight judges," including William Marbury. Marbury's commission was never delivered before Jefferson took office.
When Jefferson became president, he instructed Secretary of State James Madison to withhold Marbury's commission. Marbury sued. The case raised several questions:
Did Marbury have a right to the commission?
If he had a right, was there a remedy?
Could the Supreme Court decide this?
Chief Justice Marshall concluded that Marbury did indeed have a right to his commission and that the law should provide a remedy when such a right is violated. In issuing this decision--against the sitting president--Marshall established the power of courts to review the constitutionality of laws and declare them void if they conflict with the Constitution:
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is... If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each."
This has been respected by all three branches of government ever since. We'll see if it continues to be during Trump's second presidency.
June 20, 2019
A Different View
The author looks at Marbury v Madison in light of the political history and judicial activism of John Marshall. The landmark precedent for judicial review is set in the time and place, and a historical frame used to critique the decision. Viewed through this frame, Marbury was perhaps the most politically driven act of judicial activism in US history. An interesting read.
The author looks at Marbury v Madison in light of the political history and judicial activism of John Marshall. The landmark precedent for judicial review is set in the time and place, and a historical frame used to critique the decision. Viewed through this frame, Marbury was perhaps the most politically driven act of judicial activism in US history. An interesting read.
May 27, 2012
Well-researched, and focuses on the constitutionality of judicial review, with its primary sources being the minutes of the constitutional convention and the Federalist papers. The writer argues that Marshall basically made this up and that nowhere does it so much as suggest the founding fathers wanted to give the court so much power.
Fine and educational, but did not hold my attention well.
Fine and educational, but did not hold my attention well.
March 6, 2012
My review at Bookreporter.com - http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/t...
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews