Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-26T20:49:55.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Marbury v. Madison: How History Has Changed John Marshall's Interpretation of the Constitution—A Response to Winfield H. Rose

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2004

Christopher B. Budzisz
Christopher B. Budzisz
Affiliation:
Loras College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his April 2003 PS: Political Science and Politics article “Marbury v. Madison: How John Marshall Changed History by Misquoting the Constitution,” Winfield H. Rose presents an argument in which Chief Justice Marshall knowingly distorted the meaning of the Constitution for strategic gain. The strategic gain was the creation of judicial review (the power of the Court to invalidate acts of other branches of government as violative of the Constitution). The key means to achieve this goal was to intentionally misquote Article III in the Court's most famous of cases, Marbury v. Madison (1803). Rose offers his argument as the product of a new discovery (that of detecting Marshall's misquotation), and this discovery as the product of a fresh reading of the case. The reading is a “fresh” one because Rose looks anew at the actual text of the decision and does not rely on the accepted “textbook wisdom” of the case. He calls us rightly to revisit the case and follow him beyond the “conventional textbook wisdom” regarding the case. However, Rose's analysis fails in the end precisely because it remains so wedded to the textbook wisdom on Marbury and judicial review that he advises against.

Type
Departments
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , July 2004 , pp. 385 - 389
Copyright
© 2004 by the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alfange JrDean. 1993. “Marbury v. Madison and Original Understandings of Judicial Review: In Defense of Traditional Wisdom.” Supreme Court Review 30: 329– 446.Google Scholar
Anderson Jeffrey H. 2004. “John Marshall's Opinion in Marbury v. Madison Does Not Rely on a Misquoting of the Constitution: A Response to Rose.” PS: Political Science and Politics 37 (April): 199– 202.Google Scholar
Boudin Louis. 1932. Government by Judiciary. 2 vols. New York: William Goodwin.Google Scholar
Clinton Robert L. 2002. “The Supreme Court Before John Marshall.” Journal of Supreme Court History 27 (November): 222– 239.Google Scholar
Clinton Robert L. 1999. “How the Supreme Court Became Supreme.” First Things 89 (January): 13– 19.Google Scholar
Clinton Robert L. 1997. God and Man in the Law: The Foundations of Anglo-American Constitutionalism. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Clinton Robert L. 1989. Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Corwin Edward S. 1914. “Marbury v. Madison and the Doctrine of Judicial Review.” Michigan Law Review 12: 538– 572.Google Scholar
Franck Matthew J. 1996. Against the Imperial Judiciary: The Supreme Court vs. The Sovereignty of the People. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Graber Mark, and Michael Perhac, eds. 2002. Marbury versus Madison: Documents and Commentary. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Hobson Charles F. 2000. The Great Chief Justice: John Marshall and the Rule of Law. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Levy Leonard. 1988. Original Intent and the Framers' Constitution. New York: Collier MacmillanGoogle Scholar
Levy Leonard, ed. 1967. Judicial Review and the Supreme Court. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
McCloskey Robert G. 1960. The American Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nagel Robert. 1989. Constitutional Cultures. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Nelson William E. 2000. Marbury v. Madison: The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Newmyer R. Kent. 2002. John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
O'Fallon James A. 1992. “Marbury.” Stanford Law Review 44: 219– 260.Google Scholar
Rose Winfield H. “Marbury v. Madison: How John Marshall Changed History by Misquoting the Constitution.” PS: Political Science and Politics 36 (April): 209– 214.Google Scholar
Simon James F. 2003. What Kind of Nation: Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, and the Epic Struggle to Create a United States. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Snowiss Sylvia. 1990. Judicial Review and the Law of the Constitution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Stoner James R. 1994. Common Law and Liberal Theory: Coke, Hobbes, and the Origins of American Constitutionalism. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Wolfe Christopher. 1994. The Rise of Modern Judicial Review: From ConstitutionalInterpretation to Judge-Made Law, revised edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar