Marbury v Madison was the seminal case that defined the boundary between the separation of powers. Under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court, and such other lower federal courts as the Congress may establish, with jurisdiction over cases and controversies arising under the Constitution and substantial cases where there is diversity of citizenship subject to the limitations of the Eleventh Amendment. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the interpretation of the Constitution, and its decisions are binding as law, until overturned by the court, legislative act, or by constitutional amendment. Indeed, it would not be possible for the court to exercise that grant of jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution without interpreting its provisions. In this, the power of the judicial branch is limited; and the federal courts have always been self-limiting under long-standing provisions of abstention and principles of comity; and more recently under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).
not expressly conferred, albeit that it would not be in its interest - or the interest of the nation - to do so, for without the power of the judiciary, the acts of the legislative branch would not be enforceable except by unchecked executive power. The power of the judiciary is at the very core of the constitutional system of checks and balances. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote: "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws. . ." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). The sword of justice cuts both ways, and in its sway guards over our individual rights and liberty. It is the same today.
Take the blinders off.
"Congress has the power to further limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts."
Only true on paper; in reality, the efforts of the judiciary and the executive are geared toward accumulating as much power as possible.
1. In 1793, the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over a sovereign state (Chisholm v. Georgia).
a. The court claimed that the preamble referred to the desires "to establish justice" and "to ensure domestic tranquility," and this gave the court the right to resolve any disputes. Justice Wilson went right for the throat: "To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown."
Chisholm v. Georgia | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism
2. This was
not what the Federalists had argued when the Constitution was being debated.
The agreement was that federal courts could hear such suits when they had been initiated by the states. And that is exactly what is stated in
the 11th amendment: federal court's jurisdiction had to be read narrowly!
a. The 11th amendment explicitly denies the federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits "prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
b.
The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was to limit federal courts to the strict confines of article III.
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman
3. In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he
consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power. Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.
Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.
Yet this is the sort of dissembling that you and other dis-respecters of the Constitution hide behind.
4. Marshall represents a pivotal point in the pirating of power by the federal government.
Consider the Judiciary act of 1789, in which section 25 hands powers to the court: " One of the most controversial provisions of the act, Section 25, granted the Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions from the high courts of the states when those decisions involved questions of the constitutionality of state or federal laws or authorities." History of the Federal Judiciary
a. Had Marshall read the amendment through the prism of it's intended purpose, how would he have viewed section 25?
Yup: unconstitutional.
