Why is Marbury v. Madison foundational to constitutional law?

Why is Marbury v. Madison foundational to constitutional law?

• A. It established judicial review
• B. It established the supremacy of Congress
• C. It established the doctrine of stare decisis
• D. It established the power of the executive to appoint justices

Answer: (D)

Judicial review is the central idea: Marbury v. Madison established that the judiciary has the power to interpret the Constitution and strike down laws or executive actions that violate it. In this ruling, the Court held that a portion of the Judiciary Act extended the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution permits, and therefore that provision was unconstitutional. By affirming that the Constitution is the supreme law and that it is the judiciary’s job to say what the law means when constitutional questions are involved, the decision created a powerful check on both Congress and the President. It is this ability of the courts to invalidate statutes or actions that conflict with the Constitution that makes the case foundational. The other options don’t fit because Marbury v. Madison did not establish Congress’s supremacy, nor did it create a doctrine of stare decisis, and it did not inaugurate a new power for the President to appoint justices—the appointment power pre-existed and the case focuses on constitutional interpretation and judicial authority.

Judicial review is the central idea: Marbury v. Madison established that the judiciary has the power to interpret the Constitution and strike down laws or executive actions that violate it. In this ruling, the Court held that a portion of the Judiciary Act extended the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution permits, and therefore that provision was unconstitutional. By affirming that the Constitution is the supreme law and that it is the judiciary’s job to say what the law means when constitutional questions are involved, the decision created a powerful check on both Congress and the President. It is this ability of the courts to invalidate statutes or actions that conflict with the Constitution that makes the case foundational. The other options don’t fit because Marbury v. Madison did not establish Congress’s supremacy, nor did it create a doctrine of stare decisis, and it did not inaugurate a new power for the President to appoint justices—the appointment power pre-existed and the case focuses on constitutional interpretation and judicial authority.