Marbury v. Madison

Marbury v. Madison is a landmark case in US history.  It was tried before the Marshall Court in 1803.

Basically, in the last 24 Hrs of Adam's presidency, he packed empty federal court benches with staunch federalists (would basically be the Democrats today) before the Republican President Jefferson took over.

At this point, Chief Justice Marshall was actually Secretary of State Marshall, and he was tasked with distributing the commissions to the new judges.  At the last hour Marchall had distributed all but seventeen of the commissions.

Upon learning of Adam's scheme, President Jefferson and Secretary of State Madison said that they were not going to deliver the remaining commissions.  And one of these remaining writs belonged to William Marbury.

Before I continue, I should note that one of the writs was for Supreme Court Chief Justice, and that when to Secretary of State Marshall.  So in Marbury v. Madison, marshall is the Chief Justice.

So now Marbury has placed a Writ of Mandamus before the Supreme Court and against Madison to distribute the remaining writs. 

Marshall had a dilemma.  He either could rule that the remaining commissions had to be dispersed.  The problem with this is that there was no way at the time to enforce court rulings against the Executive.  Madison could just thumb his nose at the court at that point and not deliver the remaining commissions.  This would ruin the legitimacy of the court essentially from the start of our country.

Also, another thing that Marshall considered is that the Republican congress could attempt to impeach Marshall if he ruled to distribute the commissions.

Marshall's solution was such.  He could issue writs to compel Madison to do his duty and deliver the remainder of the commissions.  However, the writ was authorized by the Judicial Act of 1789, NOT the Constitution of the United States.

Now Marshall write in his decision the famous lines that you may have heard at one point or another (especially, if you took Political Science for one of your electives). "A law that is repugnant to the Constitution is not a law."  There is more to it than that, and the extra is very telling (in a good sense) as well.

This ruling made it to where the court could not issue such ruling because even though in the Judicial Act of 1789 the court had Original Jurisdiction over such writs and decisions, Article III of the United States Constitution does not give the courts that original jurisdiction.

However, what most people don't know is that you can still use that principle today to overturn most of our laws.  The reason why it hasn't been done is two-fold.

We don't represent ourselves in court.  We hire British Accrediting Registry Attorneys to represent us.  And their first loyalties are to the court... NOT YOU.

Second, those British Accrediting Registry Attorneys are trained to do procedure, and not to consider any of these laws.  Their paralegals might know about alot of this, or they may be so compartmentalized that they can't even see it.

I would strongly urge you to at least give this guy a listen.  You will learn alot about our constitution and alot of the American Jurisprudence and Case law surrounding all your rights therein.

Video one


Video two


Video three


And remember, this is for information and educational purposes only.  If you do anything based on this page and you get thrown in the pokey...then you should have done more of your due diligence.

Again, feel free to leave comments below and also watch the included videos and get knowledgeable about your rights.  This is the only way to take your country back peacefully.