while we all ponder the implications of harriet miers and a roberts-led supreme court (and wonder why justice stevens had time to dine with super smart nicholas in new york city on friday, when we all know that red mass was happening on monday...), we are instructed by ms. popcornkernel as to the judiciary act of 1801:
here's what she has to say:
"Well, to begin at the beginning…
The Constitution declares that there will be three branches of government, but the details were a little vague. For example, the Constitution did not specify how many justices were to sit on the Supreme Court. Shortly after the Constitution was ratified in 1789, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789 stating there would be one Supreme Court, three circuit courts, and 13 district courts (one per state). They also specified there would be one Chief justice and five Associate justices, but the scope of their power was undefined.
The judiciary act of 1801 gave Adams, who was at the very end of his presidential term, the power to appoint judges as he saw fit. He planned to fill the nation’s courts with Federalists to stack the courts against the incoming Republican president, Jefferson. He reorganized the district and circuit courts, changing their sizes and adding lifetime positions. The judges that Adams selceted were referred to as Midnight Judges, because it was rumored that these appointments were being signed at midnight before Jefferson could take office. One of these Midnight Judges was William Marbury, appointed on March 3. Keep in mind that Adams made all of his appointments in 19 days.
After Jefferson’s inauguration on March 4, 1801, he and his Secretary of State James Madison treated nearly half of the appointments as void, including Marbury’s. In the 1803 case of Marbury vs. Madison, the court unanimously voted that Marbury had a right to the Supreme Court position, but that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. Marbury never got to sit on the Supreme Court. The case of Marbury vs. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court exercised the power of judicial review, declaring that acts made by Congress years earlier were unconstitutional."
isn't that impressive? i'm so proud of my girl.
ms. popcornkernel says that she's been unable to find concrete evidence that there was no supreme court from 1801 to 1803, but georgetown wouldn't hire someone who didn't know what they were talking about, would they?
absolutely not.
if this were a celebrity death match, who would you vote for?
no fair voting for the guy on the left (marbury) whose picture, due to the limits of this bloggers technical abilities, looks
bigger than james madison.
so, i look forward to seeing who votes for who.
and, finally, oh brother, where art thou?
gotohellifyouhatefreedom,
volansky
6 comments:
I vote for Madison, because short people have gotten a bad rap, thanks to Tom Cruise and Randy Newman. But when was the last time we got screwed over by a short president? Not in my lifetime, because there haven't been any. Maybe that's where we've gone wrong. Well, that does it...I'm kicking off my Gillin in '08 campaign. Who's with me?
they both wear a puffy shirt so well. i vote for marbury because madison and his "i don't give a rat's ass what the last guy did, i've got political capitol and i intend to spend it" act sound disturbingly familiar.
S
Definitely Madison. I bet he was pretty hardcore. And, for reasons beyond my comprehension, he was my favorite historical figure as a small child. And I must agree with Mr. Brotzman there--short people are pretty awesome. Not that I'm biased.
Oh my god. Kevin, if Gillin ran this country, I think I might be a very happy girl. We'd never have to go to war again! Gillin would just read poetry til everyone got along, and if it didn't work, Mrs. G would talk the aggressors down (which you KNOW would work.)
I choose to exercise my option to write in a candidate: Chief Justice Marshall who wrote the majority opinion in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. It was beyond creative, it was genius. Of course, it was more political than legal, but that's not the point. It's a masterstroke of judicial statesmanship that created the foundation of judicial review.
Yes, Dr. Taylor was my advisor. Stop looking at me like that.
Okay, fine. Madison. And I'm not afraid to admit my bias. He was shorter than I was - according to the statues in the Constitution Center. AND as the "Father of our Constitution" what does Marbury really bring to the table? A "midnight appointment" and never sitting on the court?
Christ, history really does repeat itself. Oy.
Alright, alright we all love Madison: Father of the Constitution, president, short guy, wife who lent her name to my favorite brand of sweet cakes as a child (was there an really anything better than Zingers?). But let’s be realistic, if it wasn’t for Marbury fighting for his appointment would we have the concept of Judicial Review? Without this power in the hands of the Supreme Court, would we still have individual and states protesting allegedly unconstitutional laws as Jefferson and (dare I say it) Madison did with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798? The idea that individual states could push for the, “nullification of…all unauthorized (read, unconstitutional) acts” (Second Kentucky Resolution, 1799) really would not be a workable system.
So for his tenacity, which while doomed pushed our governmental system an important step forward, I vote for Marbury.
Post a Comment