Talk:Marbury v. Madison

Question about the case and potentially an undisclosed explanation

Hi there. As a Wikipedia reader (besides being a contributing user) interested in the US Supreme Court rulings but not an expert in jurisprudence, there is a question that I wonder if it has an answer but that has not been given in the article and that might not be clear to another potential reader.

So, if the delivery of Marbury's commission did not invalidate the commission itself (not an essential element) why Marshall and Marbury need to force Madison to make the delivery via mandamus? I mean since the delivery did not matter wouldn't that be enough to give Marbury his position (which he got by mere act of President)? Was there another function of commission delivery? Lone Internaut (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Reading about the case on Encyclopedia Britannica, it turns out that "formality or not, without the actual piece of parchment, Marbury could not enter into the duties of office". This would explain somehow the thing. I think it should be added to the article. Lone Internaut (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It's there. "Without the commissions, the appointees were unable to assume the offices and duties to which they had been appointed."  White Whirlwind  16:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh... somehow I did not pay much attention to it. I think I did not perceive it as a imposed and insurmountable condition to assume office, due to the fact that it is said before the "Decision" section, probably. Maybe also because English is not my mother tongue and something gets lost in the reading flow, I don't know.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. Great job with this article, whirlwind. Lone Internaut (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

No need to apologize. The world always needs more engaged and inquisitive readers. Also, thank you for the kind words.  White Whirlwind  20:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Is it clear to the reader that John Marshall was both the Secretary of State AND the Justice?

I wfy'ed the first reference to his name, but left the second ... this [1] diff shows removal of the second by User:White_whirlwind ... I agree with that removal, (our practice is usually to only link the first ref) but wonder if somewhere in the first or second para it should be made clear they are in fact the same person. Thoughts? Maybe I'm the only confused person. I was thinking of inserting "(former Secretary of State)" or similar but could not come up with a construction I liked. ++Lar: t/c 15:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I came here specifically to make the same suggestion for the same reason. (I'm familiar with Marbury v. Madison and I, too, was confused by the current wording.) The cleanest and most effective edit would be to change the first line of the third graf (which currently reads "In an opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Court held firstly that...") to: "In an opinion written by John Marshall, the former Secretary of State who by then had been appointed Chief Justice of the United States, the Court held firstly that..." Neither "John Marshall" not "Secretary of State" would need internal Wiki links, as both would be second-reference; however "Chief Justice of the United States" would require an internal Wiki link. [Note: Technically, Marshall would not require the reiteration of his first name in this proposed revision, as this would be a second-reference mention; however given the tumble of so many names in such a short space, I think reiterating "John" would make it extra clear to readers that this was the same person.]

Bruce Kluger (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Tried to address these concerns. See the article and let me know if it's improved.  White Whirlwind  21:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, [User:White_whirlwind]]. Thank you for reaching out. No, unfortunately, whatever changes were made do not address the inherent problem. The dual role of John Marshall remains unclear and confusing. I recommend that you review my proposed fix, which I maintain the the cleanest solution to an an admittedly confusing element of the story. Without that fix (or something approximating it), the Wikipedia article reads as if it was carelessly written and/or edited. Bruce Kluger (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Body missing the name of the “law congress had passed that gave…”

When we get here: “Examining the section of the law Congress had passed that gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction over types of cases like Marbury's, the Court found that it had expanded the definition of its jurisdiction beyond what was originally set forth in the U.S. Constitution.[8] The Court then struck down that section of the law,…” the body of the article article hasn’t stated the name of the name of a law, nor linked to it.

Rough suggestion: Examining Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the law Congress had passed that gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction over types of cases like Marbury's, the Court found that it had expanded the definition of its jurisdiction beyond what was originally set forth in the U.S. Constitution… 168.91.236.137 (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe also “…the law Congress passed that had given the Supreme Court…” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.91.236.137 (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The body is not missing the name of the law. It's in the "The Supreme Court's jurisdiction" section.  White Whirlwind  21:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)