Join BookitisSave favorites, build lists, and follow creators.

The activist

John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, and the myth of judicial review

Bookitis Pick
Cover for The activist
TA
Image source: Open Library
Lawrence Goldstone2 editions

Among the many momentous decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, none has had a greater impact than that passed down in 1803 by Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Marbury v. Madison. While the ruling itself was innocuous, its implications were enormous, for Marshall had, in essence, claimed for the Supreme Court the right to determine what the Constitution really means, known formally as the principle of "judicial review." Yet, as author Goldstone shows, that right is nowhere expressed in the Constitution. Goldstone brings to life the debates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 over the structure of our judicial system, and introduces in brief the life and ambition of John Marshall, and the early, fragile years of the Supreme Court. Marshall made the Court supreme, and ironically, while judicial review has been used sparingly, without it the Court would likely never have intervened in the 2000 presidential election.--From publisher description.

Overview

Shared work-level identity and catalog context.

1 credited authorSearch language english

Bookitis keeps work pages focused on the shared book identity and the editions that actually belong to it. Unrelated books should not appear here as primary content.

Contributors

People credited with this work in the active catalog.

  • Lawrence Goldstone

    Author profile in the active Bookitis catalog

    Open Author

Editions

Publication-specific versions linked to this work only.