Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Confused with Marshall's wording in Marbury v. Madison  (Read 1222 times)

SASS

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
Re: Confused with Marshall's wording in Marbury v. Madison
« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2009, 10:02:10 AM »
Alright, I guess I will bite at this one:

The Judiciary Act expanded the S.Ct's original jurisdiction to include the ability for someone to directly file a writ to the S.Ct., instead of working it's way up on appeal.  This is unconstitutional b/c the Const. limits the cases and controversies the Court can hear as a matter of original jurisdiction in explicit terms.  As such, Congress may not expand the Cts docket in original jurisdiction.

I hope that that answered your question. If note, just get a supplement or ask your prof.

,.,.,.;.,.,.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2016
    • View Profile
Re: Confused with Marshall's wording in Marbury v. Madison
« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2009, 10:14:38 AM »
Marbury is a terrible case to flex your pre-law muscles, because it's really a Civil Procedure case in the guise of a ConLaw case.  And there's no reason to learn that crap by yourself.  Try Torts or Contracts.

The Founders created the Federal courts.  The bulk of your CivPro course will discuss their "subject matter jurisdiction," or which cases they're allowed to hear.  Article III, s 2 provides the constitutional limit of these cases, and then federal statutes like 28 USC 1359 have helped to carve it out (e.g., diversity, 75k, federal question).  Marbury says, in so many words, that SCOTUS does not have jurisdiction over this case.  In doing so, he ironically gave strength to the court.

Don't read Marbury over the summer.  I can't think of a more obnoxious waste of time.

Tetris

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2146
  • Michigan Rocks
    • View Profile
    • LSN
Re: Confused with Marshall's wording in Marbury v. Madison
« Reply #12 on: April 06, 2009, 11:17:01 PM »
Get Chemerinsky.

I think the best approach for Pre-L gunning is to go over supplements.  Let the supplements fill your head, clearly, with the main theories and explanations of the law.  Then once you start your 1L readings, use your mastery of the "inside the box thinking" to start thinking outside the box.
_______
.|E|R|S.

,.,.,.;.,.,.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2016
    • View Profile
Re: Confused with Marshall's wording in Marbury v. Madison
« Reply #13 on: April 06, 2009, 11:59:44 PM »
Get Chemerinsky.

I think the best approach for Pre-L gunning is to go over supplements.  Let the supplements fill your head, clearly, with the main theories and explanations of the law.  Then once you start your 1L readings, use your mastery of the "inside the box thinking" to start thinking outside the box.

Reading = TTT.  Just get a good outline and book the exam with some solid analysis.