now i've heard a lot of people use this one sentence in the marbury versus madison ruling to express the idea that the supreme law of the land is the constitution and any other law that's written in contradiction of it should be disregarded and i've used this argument myself but things are absolutely not as they appear in this one sentence ruling let me explain marbury versus madison is the legal case in which on february 24th 1803 the u.s supreme court first declared an act of congress unconstitutional thus establishing the doctrine of judicial review the court's opinion written by chief justice john marshall is considered one of the foundations of u.s constitutional law here's a little background in the weeks before thomas jefferson's inauguration as president in march 1801 the lame duck federalist congress created 16 new circuit judgeships in the judiciary act of 1801 and an unspecified number of new judgeships in the organic act which adams proceeded to fill with federalists in an effort to preserve his party's control of the judiciary to frustrate the legislative agenda of jefferson and his democratic republican party because he was among the last of those appointments the so-called midnight appointments william marbury a federalist party leader from maryland didn't receive his commission before jefferson became president once in office jefferson directed his secretary of state james madison to withhold the commission and marbury petitioned the supreme court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel madison to act marbury and his lawyer former attorney general charles lee argued that signing and stealing the commission completed the transaction and that delivery in any event constituted a mere formality but formality or not without the actual piece of parchment marbury could not enter into the duties of office despite jefferson's hostility the court agreed to hear the case marbury versus madison in its february 1803 term now some scholars have questioned whether marshall should have removed himself from the case because of his prior service as adam's secretary of state from 1800 to 1801 and certainly later judicial standards would have called for recusal but at the time only financial connections to a case led judges to step aside as marshall did in suits regarding virginia lands in which he had an interest the republicans always quick to criticize marshall didn't even raise the issue of propriety of his sitting in the case the issue directly presented by marbury versus madison can only be described as minor by the time the court heard the case the wisdom of jefferson's desire to reduce the number of justices of peace had been confirmed and the judiciary act of 1801 had been repealed marbury's original term was almost half over and most people federalists and republicans alike considered the case to be moot but marshall despite the political difficulties involved recognized that he had a perfect case with which to expound a basic principle judicial review which would secure the supreme court's primary role in constitutional interpretation and that's what this case is about the power of the supreme court to interpret the constitution so the chief justice recognized the dilemma that the case posed to the court if the court issued the writ of mandamus jefferson could simply ignore it because the court had no power to enforce it now on the other hand if the court refused to issue the writ it would appear that the judicial branch of the government had backed down before the executive and marshall wouldn't have that the solution marshall chose has properly been termed a tour de force in one stroke marshall managed to establish the power of the court as the ultimate arbiter of the constitution to chastise the jefferson administration for its failure to obey the law and to avoid having the court's authority challenged by the administration this is all about the supreme court's supreme authority in the interpretation of the constitution of the united states so marshall adopting a style that would mark all of his major opinions reduced the case to a few basic issues he asked three questions number one did marbury have the right to the commission number two if he did and his right had been violated did the law provide him with a remedy number three if it did would the proper remedy be a writ of mandamus from the supreme court the last question which is the crucial one dealt with the jurisdiction of the court and in normal circumstances it would have been answered first since a negative response would have obviated the need to decide the other issues but that would have denied marshall the opportunity to criticize jefferson for what the chief justice saw as the president's flouting of the law following the arguments of marbury's council on the first two questions marshall held that the validity of a commission existed once a president signed it and transmitted it to the secretary of state to have fixed the seal presidential discretion ended there for the political decision had been made and the secretary of state had only a ministerial task to perform delivering the commission in that the law bound him like anybody else to obey marshall drew a careful and lengthy distinction between the political acts of the president and the secretary in which the court had no business interfering and the simple administrative execution that governed by law the judiciary could review having decided that marbury had the right to the commission marshall next turned to the question of remedy and once again found in the plaintiff's favor holding that quote having this legal title to office marbury has a consequent right to the commission a refusal to deliver which is a plain violation of that right for which the laws of his country afford him remedy end quote after castigating jefferson and madison for quote sporting away the vested rights of others marshall addressed the critical third question although he could have held that the proper remedy was a writ of mandamus from the supreme court because the law had granted the court the power of mandamus in original rather than appellate jurisdiction because the judiciary act of 1789 was still in effect he instead declared that the court had no power to issue such a writ because the relevant provision of the act was unconstitutional he argued section 13 of the act was inconsistent with article 3 section 2 of the constitution which states in part that quote the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors other public ministers and consuls and those in which the state shall be party and that quote in all other cases before mentioned the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction end quote and thus surrendering the power derived from the 1789 statute and giving jefferson a technical victory in the case marshall gained for the court a far more significant power that of judicial review so what was the impact because marshall's masterful verdict has been widely hailed in the face of attacks on the judiciary launched by jefferson and his followers marshall needed to make a strong statement to maintain the status of the supreme court as the head of the co-equal branch of government by asserting the power to declare acts of congress unconstitutional which the court would not exercise again for more than a half a century marshall claimed for the court a paramount position as interpreter of the constitution supreme interpreter of the constitution although marbury versus madison set an abiding precedent for the court's power in that area it did not end debate over the court's purview which has continued for more than two centuries in fact it's likely that the issue will never be fully resolved but the fact remains that the court has claimed and exercised the power of judicial review through most of us history and as judge learned hand noted more than a century later the country is used to it by now and some say that the principle fits well with the government's commitment to checks and balances and this is what's disarming about this judgment it's the statement of principle near the end of this opinion which states quote a law repugnant to the constitution is void and that courts as well as other departments are bound by that instrument so this is an example of an incredible deception things are not as they appear in this one sentence marbury versus madison ruling on its face it sounds like they're saying if a law violates the constitution it is to be rejected and that is not what's being said here even if it was to be taken at face value we should still reject the constitution in some cases why because the constitution gives politicians the right to steal from you in article 1 section 8 clause 1. in this states congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes and since taxation is theft surely sane people would welcome a law repealing that right of congress right and the super important thing here is that chief justice john marshall used marbury versus madison to expound and expand judicial review which would secure the supreme court's primary role in constitutional interpretation with one stroke marshall established the power of the supreme court of the united states as the ultimate arbiter of said constitution so what this all boils down to is that the meaning of this judgment should read all laws repugnant to the interpretation of the supreme court are null and void and such a judgment should never be left up to robe tyrants leave your thoughts about this for the world in the global thought police in the comment section below if you haven't done so already subscribe to this channel hit the bell notification icon give it a thumbs up share with everybody you know don't forget to subscribe to my private email list through my website impactflix.com and subscribe to me on all my alternate platforms the links are in the description i'll see you in the next video