marbury brought suit against madison. asked the supreme court for a writ to compel the commission. if marshall issued the order, would it be enforced? if madison refused to obey it, would this not undermine the prestige of the court? ♪ in this dilemma, marshall made his decision. backed by a unanimous court, he said marbury was entitled to his commission, but that the court had no right to issue the requested writ. the constitution, said marshall, defined the powers of the court in procedures of this sort, and the act of congress was with the and therefore void. president jefferson and congress accepted this without protest. it gave them the victory. thus, they helped to establish the doctrine of judicial review. the doctrine that the supreme court, in settling a case, must necessarily ignore a law that it finds in conflict with the constitution. it must in effect void the law. in the opinion of justices of yesterday and today, the court should be cautious in such actions. it must void a law only if a decision requires it

marbury brought suit against madison.ttorneys asked the supreme court for a writ of mandamus to compel madison to deliver the commission. but if marshall issued the order would it be enforced? if madison refused to obey it, would this not undermine the prestige of the court? in this dilemma marshall made his decision. backed by a unanimous court he said marbury was entitled to his commission but that the court had no right to issue the requested mandamus. the constitution, said marshall, defined the procedures of the court in procedures of this sort and the acting congress authorizing wrists mandamus, was at variance with it. therefore void. president jefferson and congress accepted this without protest. it gave them the victory. thus they helped to establish by precedent the doctrine of judicial review. the doctrine that the supreme court in settling a case must necessarily ignore a law it finds in conflict with the constitution must in effect void the law. in the opinion of justices of yesterday and today the court shou

>> marbury brought suit against madison and his attorneys asked the supreme court for writ lee to compel medicine to deliver the commission. if marshall issued the order, would it be enforced? if madison refused to obey it, with this not underline the prestige of the court? can >> in this dilemma, marshall made his decision, back by a unanimous court he said marbury was entitled to his commission, but that the court had no right to issue the requested -- . the constitution to find the powers of the court, in matters of this sort, and the act of congress, exercising brits, was the very decision, therefore void. president jefferson and congress, accepted this with a conflict. let's they help to establish, by precedent, the doctrine of official review. the doctrine of the supreme court, in settling a case, must necessarily ignore a lot that it comes in conflict with constitution, it must in effect void the law. in the opinion of justices of yesterday and today, the court should be cautious in such actions, it's it must void a lot only if a decision requires it most observers feel the court

this is a pre-marbury period, and certainly a free burger court period. what was most important to the republic then was the ability to elect legislators because the legislative process was seen as the primary threat to individual rights. guess what? the 3/5 clause i mentioned earlier enhanced the population basis that slave holding states would have by allowing them to count three-fifths of every slave they held as a person towards the number of representatives that they would have in the house of representatives. you add that to the equal representation each state in the senate, and what you wind up with is a political process that is biased towards the southern states, all of which had slavery at this time. so, with that being said, having made the case appropriately, i hope, in the way it would be made today, as well as the way it would have been made in the 18th and early 19th centuries, i now turn everything over to our speakers. our first speaker will be timothy, and he can explain to you why i am just flat wrong. timothy, the ball is in your court

>> that nothing really changed for marbury versus madison decided 19 oh three through the south carolina case in 19 oh five. even through 1935, when they say nothing change the constitution meant what it always meant the leaning of the cost - - the meaning doesn't change the words don't change the meaning doesn't changed and a unifying principle starting with court decision is in the 1930s that created a debate that looms large right now particularly in the courts and law schools and that is how should the constitution be interpreted? if not understood by those agreed to and ratified it then what else that's the alternative of the living constitution basically means whatever the judges think ought to be adjusted to legal contemporary problems. the judiciary is a non- democratic branch we are appointed not elected and the power is circumscribed and should be. but to say that they can update the constitution with five out of nine supreme court justices is required is to assume the policymaking role assume to the congress but nevertheless it has happened. and then to see how much framed. so

i would play barbie and marbury dolls will be victor and nikki. to get to work with these legends is really an incredible thing. >> the young and the restless first aired back in 1973. you can watch it weekdays at 11:00 right here on kpix 5. >>> coming up next, the top streaming music of 2020 according to spotify. and, we are working to bring you the positive stories during this difficult time. >>> spotify is wrapping up 2020 with its list of the top music streamed by its 320 million users around the world. the most streamed artist of 2020 is bad buddy. he had more than 8.3 billion streams following him are great, you swirled in the weekend. billie eilish is spotify's most streamed female artist for the second year in a row followed by taylor swift, ariana grande, doing labor and spotify says in 2020 there was a 1400% increase in work from home themed playlists. and more aching to 24-year-old listened to a podcast for the first time this year without a long >>> today's tip of the day will be with slicing local beefsteak tomatoes. still locally gro

i don't let marbury break me where my heart breaks now aware and i strive to know it. and overcome and now. last night 19 year old delmonte johnson was just outside his brother's basketball practice near euclid in 86 street when c.b.d. says someone inside a tan colored vehicle fatally shot him in the chest and stomach it's not fair that so many wacko grown kids have to worry about the moon shot. i'm going to school on the way home from school and i just will piece heal the lane we losing too many of our pains every time you turn around mama says cry mommas disqualified a baby johnson's family says he was putting together a fundraiser to help children go to christian camp and work with advocacy group good kids matt city helping to stop the violence that killed them. kids my city was created to keep the urban there of alive to talk about violence and like what would leave me and for us to be able to apply the growth. there's no one solution to the issues so just try to create new laws is going to come to stop us from you know from really what what we're going to get with

it goes back to 1803 in the case of marbury versus madison and the concept of judicial review . so i'm going to toss it to you,why is that important for folks to know ? >> it's absolutely foundational. it comes in 1803 early in the republic in which chief justice marshall known as the chief justice reasons as follows. we have a written constitution and in another place he says by the way, at the greatest innovation in political life i think ever, something like that. we had a written constitution . it's what framers agreed to and what the people of the states ratified and agreed to. so when the legislature passes a law, when congress passes a law or the executive takes an action you can take that law or the action, only against the constitution and say where is this authorized? is it authorized? and if it's not to be found in the constitution, then it's null and void and to quote the opinion justice marshall says it's in fact leave the opinion of the judiciary to say what the law is . the congress passes the loss, the executive, president and his subordinates and forced the loss

and if you don't like the constitution because it's too old and dead, you dot like marbury vs.ison, then maybe we should throw out that precedent. the dead hand? well, the dead hand also wrote the civil rights act of 1964. all law is dead, if you want to call it that. all law is written by people who came before us. and if we believe that we're really a republic, a self-governing republic, then we own that law and the right to change it or not. and that's our decision to make as "we, the people." >> the critics would say, you know, "what could the founders have possibly understood about modern technology -- abt cellphones, for example? but you give an example of an originalist application of the fourth amendment -- the amendment that protects against search and seizure -- in the context of cellphone data. >> sure. >> can you explain, how did the founders know to protect cellphone data? >> yeah, this is -- this is the same sort of thing -- dead hand. what could they possibly know about our circumstances? and i'll say, it's true, of course. thomas jefferson did not know cellphone

>> the point is nothing really changed from marbury versus madison decided in 18 three to the south carolina case decided in 1805 and even into 1935, when i say nothing changed it was understood and agreed and enforced by the court that the constitution meant what it always met. the meaning of the constitution doesn't change. the words don't change except by amendment. the words don't change, the meaning doesn't change and we've lost that as a unifying principle starting with some court decisions in the 1930s. that created a debate that move looms large right now particularly in the courts and in the law schools and that is how should a constitution be interpreted. if not according to how it was understood by the people who voted and then agreed to it andratified it, then what else ?and the alternative of a so-called living constitution basically means whenever the judges tank ought to be adjusted to meet with contemporary problems. but that's a complete, the judiciary is a nondemocratic branch. we're not elected, we're appointed . and our power is circumscribed and should be. i think rather

and justice thomas said, look, we do have original jurisdiction, meaning we have interpreted since marburyson in the 1800s if there's a dispute between two states we can look at those cases. unlike the majority of cases, we are the highest appellate court, meaning you have to work your way up the totem pole before you get to the big dogs here. well, the states issues between two states, they do have original jurisdiction but it has largely been reserved, as you know, wolf, to things like water rights or boundary disputes. in any event as justice alito and thomas made clear from our reporting, that neither of them would have actually, even if they had listened and gotten through the door for original jurisdiction, would have granted no other relief. so even if they were willing to bend an ear, they still had nothing. why? because there's no evidence. because the courts have always found and the constitution says it is the states who get to dictate it, and because this looked to be a very last-ditch effort that was intended to undermine the will of voters. we don't want to be in a country wh

part of the question, the solicitor general in the reply brief on the redies question starts with marbury and says the court continues the constitutional claimso the general remedies that courts may deny relief on such claims as a result of the doctrine, ratification, failure to make a timely objection and then says you cited other cases where they vacated actions taken by unconstitutionally structured agencies but the solicitor general says those cases show only that the vacatur is permissible not at it is mandatory in every case and that the principles i just mentioned can apply. >> they have the de facto officer and they have waived that. your reaction to the general catalog of principles outlined by the solicitor genal. >> i don't believe that it applies in a case brought under the apa. obviously many of the older presidents before 1946 and even some after were not under the apa but when they said shall set aside do you account for the prejudicial error that is the equitable doctrine and tells the court it shall set aside. then the switching gears on some of the arguments made by the

congress of the court struck down only two federal laws between marbury versus madison and dred scott and the motion of a modern judiciary vigorously enforcing rights in the face of populous threats is a 20th century construct that has to do with the incorporation of the bill of rights against the states. july 9th. monday, is the 150th anniversary of the 14th amendment to the constitution. one of the most significant constitutional anniversaries imaginable, and how heartening it is that the original understanding of that unsung hero of the 14th amendment, hugo black called him the james madison of the 14th amendment jong bingham, the ohio congressman who drafted the 14th amendment. i see appreciative nods in the audience, bingham hoped the 14th amendment would incorporate the bill of rights against the states and require the states as well as the federal government to respect the fundamental privileges or immunities of united states citizenship which included most of the guarantees of the bill of rights. his hope was thwarted by the supreme court in the infamous slaughter house cases

in the spirit of marbury vs. madison, this court's attention is profoundly needed to declare what the law is and to restore public trust in this election. as justice gorsuch observed recently, quote, government is not free to disregard the constitution in times of crisis. yet recently during the covid pandemic certain states seem to have ignored these long settled principles. that's in the case of roman catholic die sess of brooklyn, new york, vs. cuomo. a case from 2020. the petition or complaint says that this case is no different now. each of the defendant states acted in a common pattern. state officials, sometimes through pending litigation, for example, settling friendly suits, and sometimes unilaterally by executive fiat, announced new rules for the conduct of the 2020 election that were inconsistent with existing state statutes defining what constitutes a lawful vote. defendant states also failed to segregate ballot -a manner that would permit accurate analysis to determine which ballots were cast in conf