Marbury v. Madison | US government and civics

Marbury v. Madison | US government and civics | Khan Academy

Рет қаралды 85,088

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 44

@yaozuli546 2 жыл бұрын

Marbury vs. Madison - "The case of midnight Judges" (1803) - Established judicial review (wasn't established before, everyone agreed with the power after the usage) - Supreme court has the power to decide if the act made by congress or the president is constitutional or not, and overturn them Election of 1800 John Adams (incumbent, federalist) vs Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-republican) Thomas Jefferson won (1st peaceful transfer of power) > Democratic-republicans had power in president and Congress, so John Adam wanted to control the judicial branch by appointing federal judges to different courts - 16 new federal court of appeals judges, 42 justice of the peace, and diminishing the size of supreme court from 6 to 5 (since one is retiring, deprives Jefferson's opportunity to appoint a new justice) - William Marbury was one of the appointed for justice of the peace in DC - John Marshall (Longest chief Justice, 1801 - 1835) didn't have a chance to deliver the commission (too last min) - it was up to James Madison (the secretary of state for Jefferson) to deliver them - Jefferson Admin didn't want to deliver it - Marbury wants his commission, so he sues Madison Actual case: - Main concern: Can this case go straight to the supreme court? - Marshal says no since according to article 3 of the constitution, this case can't be in supreme court's jurisdiction. - It can be filed somewhere else then appeal to supreme court, but not directly to S-court - congress passed law in 1789 saying that the supreme court can hear cases like this - conflicts with article 3, this law is declared unconstitutional - judicial review is established with Marshall checking on laws Thank you Kim.

@shunlaephyuaung2650 Жыл бұрын

Thanks 🙋🙋

@kkthekkshidd 3 жыл бұрын

I love this so much

@advreyanhameedarain3903 11 ай бұрын

Well explained 👍

@myloiw 3 ай бұрын

love u, kim, views down but my grades are up‼️‼️

@lol.7173 3 жыл бұрын

Thank you!!!

@Babysitter-12345 3 жыл бұрын

Very helpful

@rfarchives3320 2 жыл бұрын

Misleading towards the end there. Judicial Review was establish in the Constitution. It's included in the main articles...

@hyojinlee 3 жыл бұрын

I love Khan Academy!!! :)

@user-sd5nf9gz6y 2 ай бұрын

I learned something

@RaviPatel-fr3tn 4 жыл бұрын

This video helped so much!

@alexcofel6260 3 жыл бұрын

No it didn’t lol

@emmaliu4103 3 жыл бұрын

@@alexcofel6260 yes it did

@alitlweird Жыл бұрын

Civics needs to be made mandatory curriculum in all public schools. As it was taught 200+ years ago.

@user-sd5nf9gz6y 2 ай бұрын

Cool

@bobzgames 3 жыл бұрын

nice vid bro

@VishnuMurthy 5 жыл бұрын

what is the comission?

@ivythong1192 5 жыл бұрын

Vishnu Murthy the document that adams signed and marshall sealed to “commission” marbury as a justice

@rjjrdq 5 жыл бұрын

Here's a question: When was the last time a judge actually made a decision based on the law?

@hopegrey9977 4 жыл бұрын

All the time lmao.

@deepalijoshi4631 3 жыл бұрын

Only all the time?

@jayzepickle6637 3 жыл бұрын

A judge in general or the supreme court justices? Because if you mean the supreme court their role is only to decide if something is constitutional, they aren't supposed to follow laws that's why they have the power of judicial review.

@jy9291 Жыл бұрын

Juries are supposed to make decisions based upon law. However juries, like Supreme Court Justices, are also able to determine if the application of the law follows the Constitution when rendering a verdict. By the time a case reaches the Supreme Court, there has been some aspect of disagreement as to whether and to what degree the law involved violates the Constitution.

@peterthegreat996 Жыл бұрын

@@jy9291uries are not allowed to interpret the law , the judge does that . Juries are the fact finder - did the state prove its case ? I almost wrote - is the defendant guilty ? That is incorrect but a common view people have of criminal law precedings. Also a judge can set aside a guilty verdict if the law does not support that but a judge can never set aside a not guilty plea. However a judge can declare a mistrial if they believe the jury is doing a nullification .

@user-kf5uh2gz5m Жыл бұрын

2:00

@peaknuckle6942 2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for having a 1st language English speaker do this. It's shocking to find so many videos having people speaking in their 2nd language with marbles in their mouths doing the narration.

@alexcofel6260 3 жыл бұрын

Confused

@safajumah2690 4 жыл бұрын

I’m confused

@Raven-ei2jg 4 жыл бұрын

Watch some other video first then comeback to this one!

@brixflores5121 4 жыл бұрын

me either

@riamariaa4906 3 жыл бұрын

same

@bobzgames 3 жыл бұрын

crash course has a good video on it

@rachaelvu5935 8 ай бұрын

I THOUGHT I WAS THE ONLY ONE

@noahnyquist8798 2 ай бұрын

@user-sd5nf9gz6y 2 ай бұрын

I know you

@owlnyc666 2 жыл бұрын

Judicial Review! The Supreme Court decides what is or is not Constitutional. Neither the Congress nor the President the Law i.e. the Constitution!

@peterthegreat996 Жыл бұрын

They ..interpret … the constitution, major difference. These judges are unelected and unaccountable. The fact that only the president can select these individuals and this case made the SCOTUS , political. And that redounds to us this day.

@michaelcolon3004 3 жыл бұрын

Sounds like today's leadership and madness 😣😈😢😦😇

@MandrakeMoorglade 4 жыл бұрын

This case was wrongly decided because the Judiciary Act of 1789, Section 13 didn't conflict with the constitution at all. It said that the writ of mandamus could only be issued when the court has Appellate Jurisdiction, meaning it has to go through a series of appeals before it reaches the Supreme Court. But this case didn't go through a series of appeals, it was brought directly to the Supreme Court so there was no need to rule Section 13 of the Judiciary Act unconstitutional.

@bobzgames 3 жыл бұрын

dum

@actanonverba3041 Жыл бұрын

SCOTUS had appellate jurisdiction and could therefore issue writs of mandamus, but the case wasn’t brought by appeal. This distinction is important

@actanonverba3041 Жыл бұрын

@@peterthegreat996 Why?

@peterthegreat996 Жыл бұрын

@@actanonverba3041wrong post . I was wrong .