Author:
ORREN KAREN,WALKER CHRISTOPHER
Abstract
Starting from the position that officer accountability is a core value of American constitutionalism, this article reassessesMarbury v. Madisonin light of the indictable acts connected to the nondelivery of Marbury's commission. First, it reads Chief Justice Marshall's opinion against the background of personal and political hostility among the principals, including between Marbury and President Jefferson. Second, it identifies avenues of further redress open to Marbury before and after the Supreme Court's refusal of the mandamus order, and it considers why they were not pursued. Finally, having identified alternative procedural traditions on which Marshall could have drawn, and reviewed decisions by state and federal judges in analogous suits against officers, it concludes thatMarbury'sdeepest contribution was to elevate the principle of jurisdiction over the imperative of remedy in constitutional decision making.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Political Science and International Relations,Sociology and Political Science
Reference95 articles.
1. Patterns of Official Immunity and Accountability;Woolhandler;Case Western Reserve Law Review,1987
2. From Fundamental Law to the Supreme Law of the Land: A Reinterpretation of the Origin of Judicial Review
3. "Marbury", Original Jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court's Supervisory Powers
4. Marbury's Travail: Federalist Politics and William Marbury's Appointment as Justice of the Peace;Forte;Catholic University Law Review,1996
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Bidding Farewell to Constitutional Torts;CALIF LAW REV;2019
2. Constitutional Judgment;The Cambridge Companion to the United States Constitution;2018-03-22
3. Actions;The Cambridge Companion to the United States Constitution;2018-03-22