Hurryyy
what was the most significant result of the ruling in marbury v. madison?
the ruling narrowed the powers of the federal government.
the ruling determined that the supreme court should not hear marbury’s case.
the ruling was made by chief justice john marshall of the supreme court.
the ruling determined that the judiciary act of 1789 was unconstitutional.

The correct option is: "The ruling determined that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional."

The ruling in Marbury v. Madison was a judicial process before the Supreme Court of the United States and resolved in 1803. It arose as a result of a political lawsuit following the presidential elections of 1800, in which Thomas Jefferson, who was a Democrat Republican, he defeated then-President John Adams, who was a federalist. In the last days of the outgoing government of Adams, the Congress, dominated by the federalists, established a series of judicial positions, among them 42 judges of peace for the District of Columbia. The Senate confirmed the appointments, the president signed them and the Secretary of State was in charge of sealing and delivering the appointment documents. In the last-minute hustle and bustle, the outgoing secretary of state did not deliver the minutes of appointment to four justices of the peace, including William Marbury.

The new secretary of state of President Jefferson's government, James Madison, refused to deliver the appointment documents because the new government was irritated by the federalists' maneuver to try to secure control of the judiciary by appointing members of his party just before ceasing in government. However, Marbury appealed to the Supreme Court to order Madison to deliver his record.

If the Court ruled in favor of Marbury, Madison could still refuse to deliver the record and the Supreme Court would have no way to enforce the order. If the Court ruled against Marbury, it would risk submitting the judiciary to Jefferson's supporters by allowing them to deny Marbury the position he could legally claim. Chief Justice John Marshall resolved this dilemma by deciding that the Supreme Court was not empowered to settle this case. Marshall ruled that Section 13 of the Judicial Law, which granted the Court these powers, was unconstitutional because it extended the original jurisdiction of the Court to the jurisdiction defined by the Constitution itself. Having decided not to intervene in this particular case, the Supreme Court secured its position as final arbiter of the law.

separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another.   the intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances.  

the traditional characterizations of the powers of the branches of american government are:

* the legislative branch is responsible for enacting the laws of the state and appropriating the money necessary to operate the government.

* the executive branch is responsible for implementing and administering the public policy enacted and funded by the legislative branch.

* the judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the constitution and laws and applying their interpretations to controversies brought before it.

forty state constitutions specify that government be divided into three branches:   legislative, executive and judicial.   california illustrates this approach; "the powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial.   persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this constitution."

while separation of powers is key to the workings of american government, no democratic system exists with an absolute separation of powers or an absolute lack of separation of powers. governmental powers and responsibilities intentionally overlap; they are too complex and interrelated to be neatly compartmentalized. as a result, there is an inherent measure of competition and conflict

minnesota:   minnesota house research,   separation of powers: when statutes and court rules conflict, 2005

the answer is a) high entry costs