Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

MARBURY VS. MADISON (1803) Essential Skill: Assess the Supreme Court case of Marbury vs. Madison and draw conclusions as to how the case should have been.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "MARBURY VS. MADISON (1803) Essential Skill: Assess the Supreme Court case of Marbury vs. Madison and draw conclusions as to how the case should have been."— Presentation transcript:

1 MARBURY VS. MADISON (1803) Essential Skill: Assess the Supreme Court case of Marbury vs. Madison and draw conclusions as to how the case should have been decided.

2 THE JUDICIAL POWER Question: What is the power of “Judicial Review”? Question: What is the power of “Judicial Review”? The power of the S.Ct. to nullify a law if they deem it unconstitutional. The power of the S.Ct. to nullify a law if they deem it unconstitutional. Question: Where is this power listed in the Constitution? Question: Where is this power listed in the Constitution? It is NOT written expressly in the Constitution. It is NOT written expressly in the Constitution. No country had judicial review in 1787. No country had judicial review in 1787. Many countries still do not have the power of judicial review today (including Britain). Many countries still do not have the power of judicial review today (including Britain). Your Mission: Decide as a Supreme Court whether this case was decided correctly. Your Mission: Decide as a Supreme Court whether this case was decided correctly.

3 ORIGINAL VS. APPELLATE JURISDICTION Second question to consider: Should this case have started in the S.Ct. under their Original Jurisdiction? Second question to consider: Should this case have started in the S.Ct. under their Original Jurisdiction? Original Jurisdiction: authority of S.Ct. to be the first court to hear a case Original Jurisdiction: authority of S.Ct. to be the first court to hear a case Appellate Jurisdiction: authority to review a lower court’s decision on a case (most S.Ct. cases are from appeals) Appellate Jurisdiction: authority to review a lower court’s decision on a case (most S.Ct. cases are from appeals)

4 MARBURY VS. MADISON (1803) Background Facts: Background Facts: President John Adams loses election of 1800 to Thomas Jefferson President John Adams loses election of 1800 to Thomas Jefferson Pres. Adams packs Judiciary with Federalist judges before leaving office. Pres. Adams packs Judiciary with Federalist judges before leaving office. John Marshall (Adam’s Sec. State) delivers the judicial appointments, but 17 were left undelivered. Oops!! John Marshall (Adam’s Sec. State) delivers the judicial appointments, but 17 were left undelivered. Oops!! Madison (Jefferson’s new Sec. State) refuses to deliver the remaining 17 appointments. Madison (Jefferson’s new Sec. State) refuses to deliver the remaining 17 appointments. Marbury, one of the 17 people, sues Madison to get his judicial appointment. Marbury, one of the 17 people, sues Madison to get his judicial appointment. Guess who is the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? Guess who is the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? John Marshall (the outgoing Sec. State) John Marshall (the outgoing Sec. State) Question: Should Marshall have ruled on this case? Question: Should Marshall have ruled on this case? Question: What is the possible constitutional crisis? Question: What is the possible constitutional crisis? Pres. Thomas Jefferson Pres. John Adams

5 SUPREME COURT’S DECISION Chief Justice John Marshall wrote unanimous opinion strengthening S.Ct’s powers: Chief Justice John Marshall wrote unanimous opinion strengthening S.Ct’s powers: Marbury had a right to his appointment Marbury had a right to his appointment Courts may order public officials to do their duty (“writ of mandamus”) Courts may order public officials to do their duty (“writ of mandamus”) BUT….S.Ct. could not do so in this case because…. BUT….S.Ct. could not do so in this case because…. Sec. 13 of Judiciary Act of 1789 was Unconstitutional b/c it gave S.Ct. original jurisdiction over this case (as a writ of mandamus), contrary to Constitution Sec. 13 of Judiciary Act of 1789 was Unconstitutional b/c it gave S.Ct. original jurisdiction over this case (as a writ of mandamus), contrary to Constitution Constitution is supreme law of land, so… Constitution is supreme law of land, so… S.Ct. may nullify laws of Congress that conflict with the Constitution. S.Ct. may nullify laws of Congress that conflict with the Constitution. Sec. James Madison

6 YOUR TURN: INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION In each Supreme Court you will: In each Supreme Court you will: 1.Read the Constitution silently for 5-10 minutes and write your own opinions 2.Choose a Chief Justice 3.Give your opinion in order of Seniority (Age; Chief Justice first) 4.Vote in reverse order of Seniority (Age; Chief Justice last) 5.The Court will Write a Majority Opinion for each question 6.Dissenters will Write a Dissenting Opinion for each question

7 ANSWER THESE TWO QUESTIONS Question 1 - Does the “Judicial Power” include the power of Judicial Review? Question 1 - Does the “Judicial Power” include the power of Judicial Review? Read Article III, Sec. 2, Clause 1 and write a majority opinion paragraph and a dissenting opinion paragraph, (at least 6 sentences each) using the language from that section. Read Article III, Sec. 2, Clause 1 and write a majority opinion paragraph and a dissenting opinion paragraph, (at least 6 sentences each) using the language from that section. Question 2 – Could the Supreme Court hear this case under “Original Jurisdiction”? Question 2 – Could the Supreme Court hear this case under “Original Jurisdiction”? Read Article III, Sec. 2, Clause 2 and write a majority opinion paragraph and a dissenting opinion paragraph, (at least 6 sentences each) using the language from that section. Read Article III, Sec. 2, Clause 2 and write a majority opinion paragraph and a dissenting opinion paragraph, (at least 6 sentences each) using the language from that section.

8 LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES LESSON Essential Skill: Explicitly assess landmark Supreme Court cases, and draw conclusions as to whether they were decided correctly. Essential Skill: Explicitly assess landmark Supreme Court cases, and draw conclusions as to whether they were decided correctly. Directions: Directions: 1) Groups of 3-4: Write summaries of all 5 cases (Title, key facts, Amendment being applied, Court’s ruling) 1) Groups of 3-4: Write summaries of all 5 cases (Title, key facts, Amendment being applied, Court’s ruling) 2) Share & Compare your summaries with your group 2) Share & Compare your summaries with your group 3) Discuss whether you agree with the court’s decision. Why or why not? Your reasons should include reference to language in the Constitution. 3) Discuss whether you agree with the court’s decision. Why or why not? Your reasons should include reference to language in the Constitution.

9 TINKER VS. DES MOINES (1969) Facts: Tinkers wore armbands in school, protesting Vietnam war Facts: Tinkers wore armbands in school, protesting Vietnam war Amendment being Applied: 1 st Amt. Freedom of Speech Amendment being Applied: 1 st Amt. Freedom of Speech Court’s Ruling: Armbands were “symbolic” speech and were protected as free speech under First Amendment Court’s Ruling: Armbands were “symbolic” speech and were protected as free speech under First Amendment

10 NEW JERSEY VS. TLO (1985) Facts: Teacher saw TLO smoking in bathroom. Vice Principal searched her purse for cigarettes. Facts: Teacher saw TLO smoking in bathroom. Vice Principal searched her purse for cigarettes. Amendment being Applied: 4 th Amt. Protection against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Amendment being Applied: 4 th Amt. Protection against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Court’s Ruling: The search by Vice Principal was constitutional, because there was a reasonable suspicion that student violated school rules. Court’s Ruling: The search by Vice Principal was constitutional, because there was a reasonable suspicion that student violated school rules.

11 MIRANDA VS. ARIZONA (1966) Facts: Defendants were not informed of their constitutional rights before police interrogated them. Facts: Defendants were not informed of their constitutional rights before police interrogated them. Amendment being Applied: 5 th Amt. Protection against Self-Incrimination (can’t be forced to be a witness against oneself) Amendment being Applied: 5 th Amt. Protection against Self-Incrimination (can’t be forced to be a witness against oneself) Court’s Ruling: Police must inform someone of their rights after they are arrested. If they do not do so before interrogation, then any admissions may not be used as evidence. Court’s Ruling: Police must inform someone of their rights after they are arrested. If they do not do so before interrogation, then any admissions may not be used as evidence.

12 GIDEON VS. WAINWRIGHT (1963) Facts: Clarence Gideon, charged with breaking and entering, appeared in court without an attorney. He asked the court to appoint an attorney, because he could not afford one. They refused. Facts: Clarence Gideon, charged with breaking and entering, appeared in court without an attorney. He asked the court to appoint an attorney, because he could not afford one. They refused. Amendment being Applied: 6 th Amt. Right to Counsel Amendment being Applied: 6 th Amt. Right to Counsel Court’s Ruling: State courts must provide an attorney for a defendant accused of a felony if s/he cannot afford one Court’s Ruling: State courts must provide an attorney for a defendant accused of a felony if s/he cannot afford one

13 BROWN VS. BOARD OF EDUC (1954) Facts: Oliver Brown sued the Topeka, Kansas School Board, because they refused to allow his child to attend the all-white school Facts: Oliver Brown sued the Topeka, Kansas School Board, because they refused to allow his child to attend the all-white school Amendment being Applied: 14 th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause) Amendment being Applied: 14 th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause) Court’s Ruling: The Fourteenth Amendment requires states to apply laws to all people equally. Segregated schools are inherently unequal and unconstitutional. Court’s Ruling: The Fourteenth Amendment requires states to apply laws to all people equally. Segregated schools are inherently unequal and unconstitutional.


Download ppt "MARBURY VS. MADISON (1803) Essential Skill: Assess the Supreme Court case of Marbury vs. Madison and draw conclusions as to how the case should have been."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google