Talk:Marbury v. Madison

Marbury v. Madison has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 15, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
February 12, 2007	Good article reassessment	Delisted
December 5, 2018	Good article nominee	Listed
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 24, 2005, February 24, 2006, February 24, 2007, February 24, 2008, February 24, 2009, February 24, 2010, February 24, 2013, February 24, 2017, February 24, 2019, and February 24, 2021.
Current status: Good article

Law Top‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Top‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

United States courts and judges Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Archives (inactive)

This article is within the scope of National Archives project, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.National ArchivesWikipedia:WikiProject National ArchivesTemplate:WikiProject National ArchivesNational Archives articles

United States: Government Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Laws applied

Infobox says "Laws applied: U.S. Const. arts. I, III; Judiciary Act of 1789 § 13". Article I of course falls within the scope of Congress and its policy-making (i.e. laws). Wouldn't be the case of referencing Article I also directly in the text if possible? And, secondarily, shouldn't "Category:United States Constitution Article One case law" be added? Lone Internaut (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Void'?

In the captions to the 4 portraits besides the 'Background' section, Jefferson is attributed with the belief that 'Marbury's undelivered commission was void'. Is that so: the Court held it was not void, of course. Marbury had the title of JP, just lacked an easy means to prove it. (No point rocking up to the JP court and demanding to take a seat - or writing to the Treasury demanding the salary - if you didn't have the Commission or a court order to evidence it).

Would Jefferson even have thought in such legalistic terms - 'void' having a distinct legal meaning. Wouldn't it be truer to say in the caption that Jefferson 'believed withholding Marbury's commission was a legal way to prevent him assuming the judgeship' ? Laworr1 (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

article 1

article 1 which is mentioned in the laws applied section is not mentioned anywhere else in the article or the original supreme court opinion so it should be remove from laws applied 70.168.135.229 (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]