Social Studies, 28.07.2019 21:00 tiannahines810

Which case allowed the supreme court to claim the power of judicial review (the authority to declare a law unconstitutional)? mccullough v. maryland gibbons v. ogden marbury v. madison brown v. board of education

Answers: 1

Show answers

Answers

Answer from: FireStorm6265

The answer is Marbury v. Madison

Answer from: biancabahena04

Marbury v. Madison

Explanation:

The Marbury v. Case Madison is a judicial process brought before the Supreme Court of the United States and settled in 1803. It arose as a result of a political lawsuit in the wake of the presidential election of 1800, in which Thomas Jefferson, who was a Democratic Republican, defeated to 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 hand over the appointment records because the new government was irritated by the federalists' maneuver to try to secure control of the judiciary by appointing members of its board. 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 risked 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.

Answer from: Quest

answer; i believe that the correct answer is ( troxel v. granville);

Answer from: Quest

buildings sir and respect

Another question on Social Studies

Social Studies, 22.06.2019 07:50

Aplaintiff filed a civil action based on negligence against a defendant in federal district court, alleging that the defendant negligently ran a red light at an intersection and collided with the plaintiff's vehicle, causing the plaintiff's injuries. a week after the close of discovery, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the defendant was negligent. with the motion, the plaintiff filed (i) his own sworn affidavit, which stated that the traffic signal was green as he entered the intersection, (ii) an affidavit of a witness who was driving the car behind him, which stated that the witness saw the entire incident and that the plaintiff's traffic signal was green as he approached and entered the intersection; and (iii) an affidavit of another witness, which stated that she saw the entire incident and that the defendant's signal had been red for several seconds before the defendant entered the intersection and was still red when the defendant entered the intersection. the defendant filed a response to the motion, noting that her answer denied negligence and further denied that her traffic signal was red, and argued that the issue of negligence and the issue of whether her traffic signal was red were in dispute, so those issues should be tried to a jury. how should the court rule on the plaintiff's motion?

Answers: 1

Answer

Social Studies, 22.06.2019 20:00

If we can't separate our civilized self from our savage self which will take over and why

Answers: 2

Answer

Social Studies, 22.06.2019 22:40

Refers to the biological heritage people use to identify themselves.

Answers: 1

Answer

Social Studies, 23.06.2019 06:00

Three thieves agreed to rob a bank. the first was to steal a car to be used for the getaway, the second agreed to procure weapons, and the third would check the bank for cameras. the car thief stole a car and parked it in a lot behind his girlfriend's apartment building. while visiting her the night before the robbery, the car thief suffered a series of convulsive seizures. he was rushed to the hospital where he was placed in the intensive care unit and heavily sedated. meanwhile the two other thieves, unaware of their accomplice's illness, met and decided to rob the bank on their own, despite the absence of a getaway car and driver. they robbed the bank, but were quickly apprehended as they tried to escape and implicated the car thief under police questioning.the car thief can be charged with: a theft of the car only.b conspiracy to commit robbery and theft of the car only.c robbery and theft of the car only.d theft of the car, conspiracy to commit robbery, and robbery.

Answers: 2

Answer

You know the right answer?

Which case allowed the supreme court to claim the power of judicial review (the authority to declare...

Questions