{"id":10979,"date":"2017-12-05t10:00:28","date_gmt":"2017-12-05t18:00:28","guid":{"rendered":"\/\/www.catharsisit.com\/hs\/?p=10979"},"modified":"2017-12-03t18:56:46","modified_gmt":"2017-12-04t02:56:46","slug":"marbury-v-madison-apush-topics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/\/www.catharsisit.com\/hs\/ap\/marbury-v-madison-apush-topics\/","title":{"rendered":"marbury v. madison: apush topics to study for test day"},"content":{"rendered":"

there are some supreme court cases that you should just know because they are important; they have some impact on u.s. policy or they expand rights dramatically. in many ways, though, marbury v. madison<\/em> tops those cases because, without this case, the supreme court would not be the supreme court we know (and love?) today. before you start reading, though, full disclosure: i\u2019m a pretty big supreme court dork. \ud83d\ude42 read on to learn about marbury v. madison<\/em> apush topics.<\/p>\n

what is marbury v. madison<\/em> all about?<\/h2>\n

it\u2019s an old tale of political rivalries and backstabbing (if you\u2019ve seen or heard hamilton \u2013 or even watched the news recently \u2013 you know what i\u2019m talking about). <\/p>\n

as you know as a student of u.s. history<\/a>, john adams was not a particularly popular president. he served one term and was pretty unaccomplished at that (with alexander hamilton as your rival, it\u2019s no small surprise he wasn\u2019t able to get much done!). <\/p>\n

but as he left the presidential office \u2013 an apocryphal story says that it was literally as he was leaving the office and thomas jefferson, the third president of the united states, was coming in \u2013 adams made many political appointments, trying to secure his own party\u2019s place in the bureaucratic offices. one of these appointments included william marbury, who was supposed to serve as a justice of the peace for the district of columbia. <\/p>\n

adams thought he had stuck it to jefferson. \u201csure, dude,\u201d adams probably thought to himself, \u201cgo ahead and take my office. but i\u2019m going to make your job so hard with all of my political appointees in important roles.\u201d but jefferson\u2019s secretary of state, james madison, refused to deliver marbury’s commission papers. (remember, at that time, someone had to literally hand you your papers to give your claims to a government position any credibility.) <\/p>\n

jefferson\u2019s administration just didn\u2019t do this with marbury\u2019s commission papers; they were refusing to deliver commission papers all over the place. so, marbury and three other scorned political appointees sued madison for the commissions; this case would be known as marbury v. madison<\/em>. <\/p>\n

ok, so what happened in marbury v. madison<\/em>?<\/h2>\n

things get complicated here. i thoroughly recommend that you listen to the podcast episode called \u201ckittens kick the giggly blue robot all summer\u201d<\/a> from radiolab\u2019s more perfect podcast. <\/p>\n

\"john
\npublic domain painting of john marshall (source<\/a>)<\/center><\/p>\n

the big idea here is that, in 1803, chief justice john marshall refused to decide the issue. according to the court\u2019s reasoning (written in a majority opinion by marshall), the constitution did not give the supreme court authority to solve this issue. <\/p>\n

it was really quite an elegant decision. in the short term, marshall was saying that the supreme court was limited in its decision-making ability. (after all, their decision in this case was basically that they couldn\u2019t<\/em> make a decision in this case, because they didn\u2019t have the authority.) but the long-term effects were that the court had the authority to interpret whether or not something was constitutional. <\/p>\n

\"mind
\n(source<\/a>)<\/center><\/p>\n

did your brain just explode?! because that is incredible. <\/p>\n

the supreme court has the ability to determine whether or not something is constitutional.<\/p>\n

marshall, supreme court: 1
\nadams, marbury, & co: 0<\/p>\n

ok, ok. why does marbury v. madison<\/em> matter so much?!<\/h2>\n

i thought you\u2019d never ask. first check out this concept of judicial review, as explained by history illustrated:<\/p>\n