and he says, "we are simply asking you to overrule marbury versus madison>" marbury versus madison must be one of the most widely cited and released red. blackmun spoke as though it somehow called the whole constitutional order into question if someone dared to suggest that the supreme court might have gotten it quite wrong on a major decision, that it could be set lee terry the court to revisit that decision. lincoln cannot have raised his hand and taken an oath to support the constitution if it were understood that that constitutional right articulated and the dred scott case, the right not to be dispossessed, everyone thought that that constitutional right was woven into the constitution as though it were in the text itself. raised the national campaign to counter and overturn that decision and through administrative means and congressional action, lincoln and his republican congress took the steps to overturn that before thell enactment of the 13th and 14th amendment. in marbury versus madison, john marshall never claimed a monopoly of the authority to interpret the constitution. al

let's look at marbury versus madison. he has been criticized, and the criticism has some merit, for citing jurisdiction last, and part of the judiciary act of 1789 was contradictory to the constitution, and it has been said and jefferson said later that all the rest of the opinion was merely dicta. what was marshall trying to do in marbury versus madison? he had just seen the jeffersonian juggernaut destroy the circuit court structure of the united states. he had been forced by his colleagues on the supreme court to take what he thought was the lower position and not battle, to accept having to write circuit again, even to a case that came to him which was being appealed to the supreme court when he was on the circuit. he knew that the marbury versus madison case had been brought early -- late in december, in mid december 1801 to try to counter jefferson's attempt to undo the circuit courts of the united states, circuit court judges of the united states. he knew that the federalists were trying to engage the supreme court

in marbury versus madison, he does not cite those federalist papers.t was a shout out to alexander hamilton. in marburynteresting versus madison, decide the federalist papers, and federal 78 and may be a shifted his attention to that from which he then sort of laid out the theory of judicial review. i call that citations of the federal state. >> it is interesting, because it goes to original as a as a theory and the way it works out is the federalist papers he is citing in cohens versus virginia, i want to say 81, 482, but is by hamilton and it is on the relationship of the supreme court to the state judiciary. and it opened by basically saying, it will take time to work out, to liquidate the meaning of this, when you are making a new government, the questions of intricacy are shorter, particularly when you are carving a new government and you are putting them on to existing sovereignties. he said, it is this time only where we can liquidate the meaning of this, but i happen to have the thing here to give you a sense of how he describes it. opinion of

scholars discuss landmark cases decided during on the courtnure including mccullough versus maryland and marbury versus madison. it's just over one hour and 20 minutes. >> founded the james wilson institute in 2013, and the

duty to consider constitutionality, but the courts as general meese talked about in the july 9, 1985 marbury versus madison establishes the structure and intent of the constitution establishes the judiciary has the final word on whether congress of the executive branch has overstepped constitutional limits in a way that violates individual rights. this is terrific. i'm going to bring general mise back up on the stage to make a special presentation. back up onmeese stage to make a special presentation. >> judge, i think you certainly have fulfilled our hope about this evening, and that is you would show both great scholarship, ace and's or humor, and a commitment to the constitution. for that, we thank you and therefore it is a pleasure to present to you our defender of the constitution award, a of justice -- i might clothed -- ande addressed to the honorable brett cavanaugh from the heritage foundation. thank you very much congratulations. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> we would also like to present to you and i am sure you know these well, for your library and working out in the morn

but the courts as general meese talked about, marbury versus madison establishes critically the structure and intent of the statute. whether the branch has overstepped the constitution in a way that violates rights. >> i'm going to bring general meese up to make a special presentation. >> i think you have fulfilled our hope about this evening. you show both great scholarship, a sense of humor and a commitment to the constitution, for that we thank you. and, therefore, it is a pleasure to present to you what we call our defender of the constitution award. it's a picture of justice i might say fully clothed. and addressed to brett kafanov. >> thank you very much. >> i'd also like to present with you for your library and working out in the morning. two copies of the commentaries of joseph story and also a much shorter version of the constitution of the united states by joseph story 37 with you will moodesty, i say a forward by me. >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you, ladies and gentlemen for being with us, there will be a reception in the foyer out here. >>> we're going to be joining the hous

and responsibility to consider constitutionality and so is the executive branch, but the courts, marbury versus madison, they talked about, the constitution establishes the judiciary has the final word on whether congress or the executive branch has overstepped constitutional limits in a way that violates individual rights. >> we'll leave this event at this point and go live now as former health and human services secretary sylvia burwell, one of the featured speakers at a health care policy forum hosted by american university where she now serves as president. these will be her first comments on health policy since being appointed president of american university. a judicial order to denied the states requests to force the trump administration to continue to make cost saving subsidy payments. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning. we have a remarkable panel here today to help wake you up with your coffee. today we're talking abou

in the famous marbury versus madison case in 1803, that was the first time the court said, this action is unconstitutional and you can't do it. from that point on the courts have been able to determine what congress or courts are doing and the power they have when they can declare something constitutional and respect it. in the other they say we don't care what the courts says, the army, we can do whatever we want but it is honored by the rest of the government. >> your point about the tv cameras looks different for the first time in light of our discussion of transparency in congress. you may be right the lack of transparency has in ceased the courts' authorities increased. is judicial independence under threat today or are the american courts well apart from that? >> they are transparent in federal courts we don't have television. it is transparent. we have the audio of what they're say, we get that out right away. the biggest worry i have about the judiciary's independence is this. we pay our judges very modest salaries roughly the same as members of congress. because we're afraid o

but in the famous marbury versus madison case in 1803, that was the first time where the supreme court said this action is unconstitutional and you can't do it. and from that point on, the courts have been able to determine that something that congress is doing or other parts of the government are doing is unconstitutional, and that's really given the supreme court the power they have when they can declare something unconstitutional and the other branches of government respect it. in some other countries, they might say we don't care what your court says, we have the army, we'll do what we want. but in this country, what the court says is actually honored by the rest of the government. >> your point about the tv cameras looks different for the first time in light of our discussion of transparency in congress, and you may be right, that the lack of transparency has increased the court's authority. is judicial independence under threat today, or are the american courts well insolated from political pressures? >> well, the supreme court is transparent in the sense that they write very det

marbury versus madison. that's the role of the courts to make that decision. the court can review executive order because of the secrecy and the courts are facing some challenges to reviewing section 702. when it comes to the procedures in the rules and the protections for americans information policy decisions have enormous impacts on americans. americans are the ones deciding what they are willing to accept a paid that's what a democracy is so for americans to do that they have to be able to have the information they have to be able to write letters, to write a mouse to their representatives in congress and become involved through the democratic process. the democratic process doesn't work well if there is not enough information out there. think the intelligence community needs to understand, i applaud the greater transparency that we have seen from the intelligence community in the last two years and i think it's extremely positive. any positive features of the oversight structures put in place are not enough. we need checks and balances that we need the am

in his most famous case, marbury versus madison, for example, to determine whether mr. marbury was entitled to his commission as justice of the peace that president jefferson had withheld, marshall engaged with common-law principles. was there sufficiency of proof that the commission was, in fact signed and sealed? was the remedy sought appropriate in the legal context? was there jurisdiction at the end of the day for him? in addition to the common-law, john marshall was extremely sensitive and respectful of the positive law. the actual laws that the republic, primarily through its legislative ranch, lays down as well as international law and, of course, common-law itself had many positive contents. crimes, which the supreme court toyed with until 1812 but more civil causes of action. which were substantive. and these positive laws the court took judicial notice of, even the unwritten laws of international law. in doing so, chief justice marshall, who was highly respectful of text, context, and history to determine the purpose of a statute -- so, for example, in barron