Been warching this man's videos the entire time I've been in law school. I 100% credit him with my success in making it to 3rd year lol

So awesome! My final is a week away, could you please PLEASE do a video going over Substantive Due Process?! Also Commerce Clause & Dormant Commerce Clause! Thank you!

Thank you so, so much for this. I had my first Constitutional Law class today and it was pretty fuzzy for me. This really solidified everything. Thank you for being so thorough, clear, and concise. Please keep making more videos!

Thank you for this video! I have watched no less than 20 other videos today trying to really understand the ruling! You have been the only one to really explain it!

This was great. Clear, precise, and easy to follow. I'm not studying to be a lawyer, but I am studying major Supreme Court decisions because I'm interested. Like someone else who posted below, I've watched several videos on Marbury v Madison. They gave an overview but did not fully explain a lot of nuance and context, such as the people who wrote Judiciary Act of 1789 were also the same people who wrote the Constitution. You also went over many key points several times rather than once. Do you take requests? Next up on my list is diving into McCulloch v. Maryland. Keep up the great work.

You’re an excellent teacher!! Thank you for these videos 💜

Not a law student but it seems to me it’s saying, nah, we can’t decide stuff that’s not constitutional…and also we get to decide what is constitutional or not. Anyway, interesting lecture. Had forgotten about this case from way back in government class in college. Will look for more of these to learn from. Thanks!

Absolutely excellent explanation of the case law and historical context of the case.

Need a heads-up on the issue of original jurisdiction. This is not a federal question or diversity jurisdiction issue for such. Instead, it comprises "affecting ambassador" and "state be a party"

Fantastic. Love how you break it down. Thank you so much for these videos. 💖😍🇺🇸💖

Excellent explanation, thanks! Third-week 1L and new subscriber.

Excellent lecture!

Such a great Breakdown. Good Job

Awesome breakdown of the case.

Great video, thank you!

the only reason I got a 3.4 my first semester of law school is b/c of these videos

Thank you! Very informative. God bless. In Christ, MA

Question how do you use this in a Court room when the court is a business.

what's JBK?

And ever since, SCOTUS keeps allowing the legislature to pass laws that erode the US Constitution. Thus, nullifying Marbury V. Madison.

Maybe I am an idiot, but Justice Marshall got it wrong. The interpretation has led to a lot of problems because it infers grammatical usage that is wrong. "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." If we remove the parenthetical elements from the statement we end up with "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction... with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." It means they could bypass the appellate requirement and allow the writ of mandamus to go forward/out. Congress had enacted a statute. The president agreed to abide by it and supported it. Marshal got it wrong, the Supreme Court had authority to issue the Writ of Mandamus. It means that they can assign cases directly to the Supreme Court through legislation, not limit the Supreme Court in its abilities to decide "Law and Fact". Modern interpretations of this are found in statutes like 205(h). Unconstitutional laws that further the ends of tyranny. If it grows how long until they assign constitutional question to a lower tribunal and tell Congress they cannot decide the "Law or Fact" of the matter? It defeats the checks and balances. They did it right on the actual matter of judicial review though.

You should have a link to a colleague in Spanish or other languages. For those who are bilingual having to learn terminology

19:30

whos this professor?

Marbury vs Madison is unconstitutional. Change my mind.

This video is great but I am having such a hard time with the fact that you keep mispronouncing William Marbury's name! lol. The last portion of the name is pronounced 'bury' not 'barry'. Yes I'm nitpicking but no one likes it when their name is mispronounced even if its a several hundred years old dead dude. ;)