Talk:Marbury v. Madison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Marbury v. Madison was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Peer review This Socsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents

[edit] Article

This is a horrible article. it doesnt explain ANYTHING. I had to do a project on Marbury v. Madison, and I almost failed it. This was the page we were supposed to use, and I had to read it about ten times to get any information. too jumbled up. out of order. disorganized. For better information on this topic go to: about.com . they will have hat you need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.21.124 (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC) This is a terrible article. It's not even clear, after reading a page and half of material, who sued whom! I read 3/4th of it and didn't even understand what the deal is all about. There's a lengthy discussion on the background of the case but the first paragraph should quickly and succintly state:

  • who sas sued by whom and why
  • result
  • historical implications


So that somebody who's interested in a quick overview will know what's going on. I swear, I read the article and I had to go to google answers to seek a REAL, informative explanation. Terrible.

Coontie 15:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I largely support Coontie's sentiment: this article is not the best and requires improvement, particularly the opening paragraph. I came from Commission looking for an answer was somebody forced to deliver a piece of paper with the commission on it. I've read to the end, including the section "Decision", and still I don't know if that piece of paper was (ordered to be) delivered so I'm not even going to try to correct it myself. Waerloeg 04:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think too much detail is being put in the opening. The main thing that should be mentioned are the historical implications (i.e., Judicial review). This was the most important US Supreme Court case in history, and it's importance has nothing to do with who Marbury was, why he was suing, or what a commission is. A brief summary of the details of the case is all that is necessary in the opening, like this. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


Another source. The Constitutional Journey of "Marbury v. Madison" G. Edward White Virginia Law Review, Vol. 89, No. 6, Marbury v. Madison: A Bicentennial Symposium. (Oct., 2003), pp. 1463-1573. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-6601%28200310%2989%3A6%3C1463%3ATCJO%22V%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.74.171.252 (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marbury redirect

There is a link to William Marbury (which is a good idea), but it just redirects to this article (which is bad). Someone should either remove the redirect, link, or make a stub page for Mr. Marbury. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.97.166.114 (talk • contribs) 00:37, February 9, 2006.

[edit] Table

I don't like this table at all. There are far too many cases to list every single one, and selection of which cases to choose is too POV to say "preceded by" and "followed by". anthony 22:03, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Background

The first paragraph says that Jefferson was inaugurated on March 4, which is correct. Then, a few paragraphs later, the article indicates that Adams signed the commisions on March 3, the same day Jefferson took office. My understanding of the history is that all of the "Midnight Justices" were confirmed by the Senate on March 3, that Adams signed and Marshall sealed them on March 3, but that they weren't all delivered before March 4, when Jefferson took office. I don't think any of them were signed or sealed on Inauguration Day, but I might be wrong about that.

Also, my Constitutional Law professor (Laurence Tribe for those in the know) indicated an interesting bit of background that I'd never heard before. According to him, John Marshall gave some of the commissions to his brother, Jim, to deliver on March 3 (including Marbury's), but Jim didn't deliver them. If some enterprising researcher want's to fact check this and include it in the background, have at it. --Kronius 20:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Judicial review

I deleted the following from the end of the article:

"The case is widely cited to support the court's first use of the tool of Judicial review in finding that a statute or action taken by the government is unconstitutional. However, the case only applied to the Supreme Court itself, as the court was only refusing to exercise a power that it thought to be unconstitutional. The first major case in which an unconstitutionality ruling was applied to the other branches of government was Dred Scott v. Sandford."

I have no idea where the person who put this article together got this, but it's simply incorrect. The Marbury Court invalidated a portion of Section 13 the Judiciary Act of 1789 on the grounds that it exceeded the original jurisdiction granted to the Court by Section 2, Article III of the Constitution. (The merits of the view that Section 2 was intended to set a ceiling on original jurisdiction as opposed to a floor are somewhat doubtful, but Marshall apparently decided to go with this bizarre interpretation in order to stage a conflict between a statute and a provision of the Constitution.) The fact that this incidentally deprived the Court of a power that it might otherwise have exercised does not in any way alter the import of the action it took. SS451 22:03, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Another Question-Please answer!

Did the Supreme Court declare the entire Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional as this article says? Or just a clause within the act, as it seems to say on the Judiciary Act (United States) article? It should be clarified. -R. fiend 22:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I believe they found only Section 13 to be unconstitutional (the section that gave the court the power to issue mandamus), not the entire act.

The Supreme Court didn't didn't declare any of the Judiciary Act unconstitutional. What Marshall said was that if the Judiciary Act meant what Marbury claimed it meant, it would be unconstitutional, therefore Marbury loses. Kronius 18:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)



wait a minute...I thought that this case gave the Supreme Court more power, not that it took away from it...clarification?69.114.144.104 01:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
to clarify, the precedential value of this case is to bestow the S.Ct. with an ability of "judicial review" over acts of congress. This is a huge enlargement of power, implied in the constitution, but not formerly appreciated. Interestingly, it manifested the very power it was creating in the process of creating it. The only "power" that it denied itself was that of "original jurisdiction" over a particular kind of controversy (this is an issue of "subject matter jurisdiction" and refers to if/when this particular court may hear a case). Congress, a legislature of limited/enumerated powers, may not enact laws that disagree with the constitution (here, Art. III, §2), other than via amendment. 76.91.157.41 (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jackson quote

For the record, the sources I consulted say that:

I have update the article accordingly. Gwimpey 23:42, Feb 22, 2005 (UTC)

Would you mind identifying your sources? Most sources that I've seen conflict with both of your assertions. Pencil Pusher 17:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If the Jackson quote is false or in question why include it in the article? It sounds nice but inclusion for effect is pointless. I vote to remove it. Vonsnip 06:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Original Jurisdiction

Marshall assumed, for no stated reason, that Article III's language regarding original jurisdiction constitutes a ceiling, not a floor, for the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. Marshall asserted that the only alternative to a "ceiling" construction of the original jurisdiction clause would require that Congress be allowed complete discretion in determining what sort of cases shall constitute the Court's original jurisdiction, meaning that an act might cause cases "affecting ambassadors" to be heard only on appeal to the Court. Consequently, Marshall finds that the Constitution and the Judiciary Act conflict. Some have questioned whether Marshall may have intentionally construed Article III in a manner calculated to create such a conflict, finding arbitrary Marshall's question-begging conclusion that Congress is not empowered to expand the Court's original jurisdiction.

I took this out for two reasons. First, the way it is written is too POV. Second, it isn't true that (i) Marshall assumes that Art. III creates a ceiling, nor is it true that (ii) he asserts the only alternative is complete discretion. These last two positions are mutually exclusive since an assertion that the only alternative is complete discretion would be a reason for a construction of Art. III as a ceiling, therefore both (i) and (ii) can't be right. However, it turns out that both are wrong, because in the opinion, Marshall states:

If the solicitude of the convention, respecting our peace with foreign powers, induced a provision that the supreme court should take original jurisdiction in cases which might be supposed to affect them; yet the clause would have proceeded no further than to provide for such cases, if no further restriction on the powers of congress had been intended. That they should have appellate jurisdiction in all other cases, with such exceptions as congress might make, is no restriction; unless the words be deemed exclusive of original jurisdiction.

Marshall is saying that if original jurisdiction had been a floor, then Art. III would just say "The supreme court shall have original jurisdiciton in cases X, Y, Z." and end there. Because Art. III goes on to say "In all the other cases...the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction" the clause has to be establishing a ceiling because otherwise the last sentence would be without meaning.

  • Makes perfect sense to me. The removed text should stay removed. Postdlf 17:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SupremacyClaus's proposed additions

N: These additions are very coherent. They list the malfeasance of John Marshall, the greatest Chief Justice, writing the greatest case at the Supreme Court. John Marshall should have disqualified himself.

You correctly point out, this wrongful decision, in violation of Article I Section 1 of the Constitution, germinated into Dred Scott that led to the Civil War. It is the most catastrophic of all cases. I am now saying it is the most illegal of all cases, as well. It should be reversed for the malfeasance involved.

SC

SC: Thanks for coming to the talk page to discuss the issue. As you are aware, Wikipedia has a strict policy of no original research, so it is not our place to make conclusive statements about (for example) the illegality of a Supreme Court decision based on our own reading of the Constitution. That being said, if there are reputable sources that draw those conclusions, it may be appropriate to discuss those references in the article, providing citations where appropriate. Perhaps we could discuss your additions one at a time here, and edit them into an acceptable form? What do you think? --Nandesuka 01:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)



Can I just add, because I find SC's vitriol hilarious, that he should first read Planned Parenthood v. Casey so that he understands how absurd it would be to overrule stare decisis merely because it was, in arguendo, an "illegal decision" (with nothing else). Next, he should realize that in throwing out Marbury (i.e., judicial review), he would also have to throw out the last 200 years of american history, for better or worse, including the modern manifestation of federalism (which provides him with basic human rights against all governmental actors), the administrative state (that provides all of the public benefits he enjoys) and the Bush presidency (I'm assuming he voted for Bush and would be upset with this outcome). In other words, relevant scholarly debates compare "what is" with "what ought to be" not with "what ought to have been". Side note, Dred Scott was only a bad decision because it found a substantive due process liberty for the slave owner instead of the slave. Judicial review cuts both ways and we just had a bad jurist on watch that night. This alternative outcome would have changed federalism without a war. 76.91.157.41 (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Words have no underlying meaning? Meanings of words cannot be determined?

Dear fellow editors:

Regarding the following text recently removed from the main article:

More generally, Marshall's argument for the notion of a judicial obligation to strike down laws repugnant to "the constitution" presupposes some sort of underlying meaning to the text of the U.S. Constitution which judges can divine, a highly controversial notion.

I firmly agree with the editor who removed this verbiage. I argue that no serious legal scholar would deny that the text of the Constitution -- the words of the text -- obviously have "some sort of underlying meaning." All real words in all documents, by definition, have "some sort of underlying meaning." Words do not define themselves; they have underlying meaning based on context and usage. I further argue that the idea that judges can "divine" the meaning of the words of the Constitution is not only not highly controversial, the idea is not substantially controversial at all. What may be controversial, depending on the specific court decision being considered, is a particular judge's interpretation of the meaning of particular words.

The idea that the words in the Constitution could have no underlying meaning, or that judges could not "divine" that meaning (i.e., cannot determine the meaning based on concepts of American jurisprudence) is, in my opinion, without legal merit. Famspear 16:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Such tautological reasoning (words=meaning; meaning=context^usage) itself has little merit. The doubt about the ascertainability of the "meaning" of the Constitution has been a significant theme in the writings of Breyer, Posner, and Paul Brest, among many others; it is the view Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia are always responding to. But the author betrays the weakness of his own argument in this statement: I further argue that the idea that judges can "divine" the meaning of the words of the Constitution is not only not highly controversial, the idea is not substantially controversial at all. What may be controversial, depending on the specific court decision being considered, is a particular judge's interpretation of the meaning of particular words. If there is an underlying "meaning" to the Constitution, then in disputes over meaning, it will always be that one judge is right about the meaning and one judge will be wrong. Now, consider the text of the Constitution: "cruel and unusual punishment"; "due process of law". What do these expressions mean in an objective sense?
The author then ends his post with the statement that the view that my argument is "without legal merit." It is this sense of "legal" as something that exists independent of rationality that Posner rightly attacks in Overcoming Law. The idea of some overarching rationality compelling judges to reach a certain result is nonsense. Please Don't Block 05:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Please Don't Block
I'd say the problem lies in what "underlying meaning" means. My guess is that it refers to a secondary level of meaning below the more obvious, surface meaning. Whoever wrote the original passage you refer to seems to have felt that the primary or surface meaning of the words as written should be considered the only legitimate meaning, and that the controversy arose when justices attempted to "read into" possible deeper meanings. I don't think anyone is foolish enough to say that the constitution is meaningless, so I think with "underlying" they were referring to a second layer of meaning. The question of whether that layer exists, and whether it should be considered if it does, may be controversial indeed. -Kasreyn 10:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: Reasoning in the form of "words=meaning; meaning=context^usage" may or may not be tautological and may or may not have merit -- but in any case that reasoning is not "my" reasoning. Obviously, words do not "equal" meaning and meaning does not "equal" context, etc.

And with due respect I don't see a "weakness" in my "argument" in the statements: "I further argue that the idea that judges can "divine" the meaning of the words of the Constitution is not only not highly controversial, the idea is not substantially controversial at all. What may be controversial, depending on the specific court decision being considered, is a particular judge's interpretation of the meaning of particular words."

The question "What do these expressions mean in an objective sense?" seems to imply that there must be (or somehow should be) some sort of "objective" sense to words in the constitution in order for judges to be able to "divine" the meanings of those words. Sorry, but I'm afraid I subscribe to the philosophy of one of my professors, who said "the law is whatever the courts say the law is." After having studied literally thousands of cases, I just don't have a problem with that. That does not mean that I don't sometimes find logical flaws in the "reasoning" of a court decision or otherwise "disagree" with an interpretation -- or dislike an outcome in a particular case.

Also, whatever the term "objective" was intended to mean by my fellow editor in this context, I am not overly troubled by the question of whether there is a true "objective" meaning that can be discerned. I am comforted by the certainty that judges do somehow interpret the law and ascribe to each considered text some sort of meaning ("objective" or otherwise, "correct" or otherwise) every day courts are in session. I may personally agree or disagree with the "rationality" or "logic" behind a particular decision, but I have no doubt that the judge in each case has interpreted the law and rendered a decision. Call me cynical, but I guess I got over that concern that there might not be an "objective" meaning in law about half way into the first semester of law school.

Also, the statement "It is this sense of "legal" as something that exists independent of rationality that Posner rightly attacks [ . . . ]" is interesting. Without commenting on what Posner writes on this topic (as I haven't yet read what Posner wrote), my response is to quote Holmes: "[t]he life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience" and to then paraphrase Holmes: "the life of the law is not rationality; the life of the law is deciding real cases." In this sense, "legality" (the philosophy of law) certainly can and sometimes does exist independently of rationality. Our court decisions are littered with "reasoning" that occasionally contains "logical" errors (and in that sense, a lack of "rationality"). Indeed, I took an entire course in law school on the logic of legal discourse in which we studied case law with a view to this very concern in mind: the presence of objectively illogical reasoning -- used by both advocates and judges, in arguing cases and rendering decisions, and we considered the ethical implications of intentionally using such argumentative forms.

No, my main problem with the deleted language was that I found it too imprecise -- I don't think the language clearly communicated what I believed its author was trying to say. I reiterate my earlier points: All real words in all documents, by definition, have "some sort of underlying meaning." Words do not define themselves; they have underlying meaning based on context and usage. I agree with Kasreyn's comments above: "I don't think anyone is foolish enough to say that the constitution is meaningless, so I think with "underlying" they were referring to a second layer of meaning. The question of whether that layer exists, and whether it should be considered if it does, may be controversial indeed." Yours, Famspear 23:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "duty to say what the law is"

I have added, to the main article, a famous excerpt from the text of the Marbury v. Madison opinion that I believe brings home, with telling force, the argument that judicial review (especially the duty to look to the written constitution as supreme law) is an essential element of the judicial function. This excerpt from the text is in my opinion one of the strongest parts of Marshall's writing in the case. Famspear 23:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why couldn't Marbury refile?

If I understand this article correctly, the court ruled that Marbury had a legal right to the delivery of his commission, but he had sued in the wrong place (since the Supreme Court did not have original jurisdiction).

Why, then, could he not refile his case in some lower court that would have original jurisdiction?

For comparison, in the recent case of Rumsfeld v. Padilla, the Supreme Court ruled that Padilla had sued in the wrong jurisdiction. (New York instead of South Carolina). Padilla responded by refiling his case in South Carolina. Why could Marbury not refile his case in some lower court in D.C.? Grover cleveland 08:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd assume that the lower federal courts weren't granted the power to order the remedy, only the Supreme Court, but it was a power that the Supreme Court could not constitutionally have. Which begs the question then as to why Congress only gave it to the Supreme Court...I don't know. If the lower courts had the power however, then he could have refiled, as this dismissal by SCOTUS would have been without prejudice. Postdlf 15:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well actually, Marbury's whole basis was suing under the Judiciary Act of 1789. But this act was found to be in direct opposition to the Constitution, so it was declared partially unconstitutional, and since this was the basis for his case, he really didn't have anything to resue under. That's what I believe, at least. (mastrchf91) 02:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume this was an issue of remedies. Either he had a right to sue or he didn't. Marshall advised that he had a right to sue, so if this were at issue today, he would most likely be able to refile/remove to a lower federal court. I'm not sure which forums were available back then... maybe by the disposition of this case, it would have been a moot issue.Jag149 (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marburry vs. Madison

This case was somonly —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.183.126.62 (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] clearer language please

there are too many idioms and too much flowery prose. examples: -no love was lost -waxed and then waned -Like countless streams flowing into a great river that snakes its way to the sea, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.73.12.33 (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

I removed a lot of additions from the last few days that, with all due respect, read more like a novel than an encyclopedia entry on a major legal decision. Much of it violated WP:OR, WP:CITE, and WP:NPOV. JCO312 03:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): [[Image:|15px]]
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail: [[Image:|15px]]

This article is well written, provides good background information, is readily accessible to a lay reader such as myself, and is fairly stable after a period requiring protection due to vandalism. However, I believe the following preclude its listing as a good article at the moment:

  1. The following statements are uncited and require attribution, or could easily be construed as original research:
    "In Jefferson's opinion, the undelivered commissions, not having been delivered on time, were void." ("Background of the case")
    "Most legal scholars agree that Marbury's case does not fit into any of those categories of cases." ("The issue")
    "It has become the tradition in U.S. judicial opinions that issues of jurisdiction are addressed first." ("The decision") I presume there will be no trouble verifying this statement.
    "Chief Justice Marshall, however, did not address jurisdictional issues until addressing the first two questions presented above, most likely because the jurisdictional issue here also happened to be the constitutional issue". ("The decision")
    "They reason that Marshall selectively quoted the Judiciary Act, interpreting it to grant the Supreme Court the power to hear writs of mandamus on original jurisdiction." ("Criticisms")—who reasons? Who are these legal scholars?
  2. The parenthetical list of cases in "Status of the judicial power before Marbury" is quite cumbersome and hampers readability. Could it be reformatted? Are wiki articles available for any of these cases besides Calder v. Bull?
  3. Also in the aforementioned section, a link to the full text of Coke's opinion would be useful to support direct quotes already present.
  4. Please have a look at the Manual of Style, particularly with regard to dates.
  5. As per WP:GTL, the "Further reading" section should follow References and precede External links. References to Smith and Newmyer are incomplete.

Otherwise, I believe this article meets the Good Article criteria and, once these issues are addressed, may be listed. Fvasconcellos 15:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Addressed your issues, mostly. (1) - I found citations for several of these, or rewrote the text to avoid the uncited claim. The only one I couldn't resolve is the one about issues of jurisdiction being addressed first, which you viewed as uncontroversial. (I just don't know how to search for it, unfortunately.) (2) Parenthetical list moved to a footnote. Wiki articles are not available for the other cases. (3) Found a link and added it in a reference. (4) Removed the link on dates like "March 2" standing alone. The one remaining is the "March 4, 1801", in which 1801 is not linked because 1801 was previously linked in the article. (5) Done; I added ISBN numbers for the incomplete refs, assuming this is what you meant. Mangojuicetalk 16:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Fvasconcellos 16:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
1801 should be linked; this is an exception to the usual rules for links to allow readers to customize date format. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent citation edits

I thought the general consensus was to have as many different forms of cites as possible, to assist in helping finding any Supreme Court case. Especially in older historical cases, isn't Cranch considered "the" reporter? I'm therefore a bit unsure of 76.10.24.245's recent removals of them as redundant. Instead of starting a revert war, I thought it would be proper to raise that question here. Eggishorn 22:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

At least for the infobox, the whole point of the "citations" line is to list every citation for the case in every reporter and online database, so always restore any removal. Re: article text, it's preferable to only include a U.S. Reports cite to avoid clutter, but it's also standard practice for old cases to include the original Reporter of Decisions cite, even in modern court opinions and documents. Postdlf 00:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
"Every citation in every reporter and online database" is needlessly redundant. What constitutes a "reporter"? Many of these citation lines include citations to various services (such as Florida Law Week), American Federal Tax Reports, etc. What separates those from, say, the New York Times reproducing the text of the opinion? Or it being on FindLaw, or some website? Where is the line between what's in and what's out? The database citations (such as Lexis) are completely redundant, since any of the databases will find the case with any of the other citation formats; the database citation format is only useful when the opinion isn't yet available in a traditional printed source. The only sources that need be listed are United States Reports, Supreme Court Reporter, Lawyers' Edition, and (maybe) United States Law Week. Anything else is not general enough to be appropriate for an encyclopedia entry, and in any event is contrary to standard practice (neither The Bluebook nor any State-specific citation system I am familiar with calls for citations to anything other than the "big 3" reporters unless it is not available in them). As for citation to the archaic reporters, it is foolish to put that in the citation line in the infobox; nobody is actually using those any more. It should, however, appear in the first reference to the citation in the text because it is standard practice to indicate that parenthetically.
As for the full name of the case, that should simply mirror what the full name of the case is in the reporter. The full name of the case is what the Reporter of Decisions styles it as. Inserting the names of the parties as taken from the case report or historical research of who the parties were is not actually the full name of the case, even if it may be the name of the parties. 76.10.24.245 01:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As this discussion is not specific to this article, but rather deals with formatting for U.S. Supreme Court decision articles generally, it should continue where this issue has also been posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases#Citations Standards. Postdlf 04:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


I would like to add that for the jurisdiction question of citation - U.S.C.A. Const. Art. III § 2, cl. 2 . I would add it myself but the article is locked which is a bit frustrating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iclkennyg (talk • contribs) 18:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How can one cite to something that wasn't?

It is not the case. The template {{fact}} means that there should be a source for the statement: "The case was ultimately unsuccessful for Marbury, who never became a Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia." See WP:A. —זכי Talk • Contributions • Edit counter

If possible, I'd prefer to keep the lead section free of citation templates. In the article text itself, we have clearly sourced that Marbury was not victorious in the case, and did not become a Justice of the Peace. If you'd prefer to alter the wording, I have no objection -- perhaps simply changing "The case was ultimately unsuccessful for Marbury, who never became a Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia" to "...for Marbury, who did not become a Justice..." would make this a less problematic statement. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, but where do you see the source? I would like to add that my problem is not the formulation, but whether the fact is true. —זכי Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 07:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Er... I wasn't specific because it's bleeding obvious from any reading of any source describing the details of the case, provided that source is worth its weight in salt. ;) If you really insist, go ahead and use this: {{cite book |author=James A. Henretta |authorlink= |coauthors=David Brody, and Lynn Dumenil |title=America's History: Volume 1: To 1877 |year=2007 |publisher=Bedford/St. Martin's |location=Boston |isbn=978-0-312-45285-8 |edition=6th edition |pages=218-219}} – Luna Santin (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added it to the text. —זכי Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 11:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Pleasure doing business. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reaction at the time?

The article mentions a couple of modern critics of the ruling but I think it would benefit from a paragraph about the reaction at the time. Was there an uproar in Congress? Senators banging their shoes on the tables in a Homeric rage? Or was there a general nodding of heads? Do we have any quotes about Marbury v. Madison from the authors of the Constitution themselves? So much is made today of the intent of the "Framers" that some content on the reaction at the time would give a lot of insight, I think. Tempshill 18:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Congress passed legislation which forced the Supreme Court into recess by statute for 14 months because this case was pending and the Jeffersonians assumed Marshall would order the commissions delivered. This article should certainly include that bit of history. As for the framers, all of the actual signatories to the Constitution never said anything in opposition to judicial review, and a fair number were vocal in support of it. MB83 (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold (Sweeps)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

Some statements are not supported by refferences. I marked them with {{fact}} tags.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Ruslik 08:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a question. Why the fact tags? These facts can commonly be found in most U.S. History textbooks, which would suggest the information is uncontroversial, and thus does not need sourcing. --Izno 09:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
If they are found in the most text books, it will be easy for you to add necessary citations. In addition, one statement "An ardent Federalist, Marbury was active in Maryland politics and a vigorous supporter of the Adams' presidency" appears to express an opinion about a particular person without a citation, and the last two paragraphs of the article cite opinions of several expert again without inline refs. They all should have citations. Ruslik 16:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Since no action has been taken, I will delist this article. Ruslik 08:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of October 15, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

Ruslik 08:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you some sort of administrator here, Ruslik? The article seems good to me, even by the standards you cited. As has been pointed out, facts that are uncontroversial do not need to be cited, and so you demanding a citation to those facts and not getting one doesn't make it a bad article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.228.141.186 (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, per Wikipedia policy, all uncited facts can be removed at any time. If it's so obvious, then go cite it yourself. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 13:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The use of The Term Repulican Party for democratic-repulican party

I do belive it is in error to call the democratica-republican party republicans and would be more accurate to call them democrats for there is a direct line of association between the older democratic-republican party and the democrats of today and there is no direct corolation between the repulicans and the democratic-repulicans. Jefferson is conceidered the father of the democratic pary, not the repulican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodwilco (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)