POL353 Midterm Exam Study Guide Marbury v. Madison- Judical Review

Preview (2 of 6 Pages)

100%

POL353 Midterm Exam Study Guide Marbury v. Madison- Judical Review - Page 1 preview image

Loading page ...

POL353 Midterm Exam Study GuideMarbury v. Madison-JUDICAL REVIEWWhat the Court Ruled:Marbury was entitled to his commission,the courtordered a writ of mandamus to Madison requesting he pay Marbury.oMandamus:A court order issued to a government official to dosomething.Why the court ruled that way:The court determined that Marbury wasofficially appointed and had a right to his commission. The court said that ifrights are violated there should be a remedy. The court determined that thebest way to remedy the violated right was to issue the writ requesting thecommission.Why the courts ruling is important:Through the issuance of the writ ofmandamus the court claimed the power of judicial review.Cooper v. Aaron-ICORPORATIONWhat the court ruled:The court ruled that Arkansas, despite the violenceand turmoil that may result, needed to follow the courts ruling in Brown v.Board.Why the court ruled that way:Arkansas argued that public education is theresponsibility of the states, and therefore they are not bound to obey federalcourt rulings. The court cited the 14thAmendment to apply the ruling to thestates, where it says, “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdictionequal protection of the laws.” The court established in Brown v. Board thatsegregated schools were inherently unequal keeping segregated schools inLittle Rock denies African Americans equal protection.Why the courts ruling is important:Selectively Applied the courts ruling inBrown v. Board through the 14thAmendmentLujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992)-casual connection, injury has to becommitted, STANDINGWhat the court ruled:The court ruled that the defenders of wildlife did nothave standing, because they could not prove injury.Why the court ruled that way:The court ruled that since the defenders ofwildlife did not have immediate plans to travel to see the animals that weregoing extinct they did not have standing.oThe court cites 3thingsplaintiffs must satisfybefore they can grantstanding:1: Plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”; an invasion ofa legally-protected interest which is concrete andparticularized and actual and imminent NOT conjectural orhypothetical2. There must be some casual connection between the injuryand the conduct complained of–the injury has to be fairlytraceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not theresult of the independent action of some third party not beforethe court.

POL353 Midterm Exam Study Guide Marbury v. Madison- Judical Review - Page 2 preview image

Loading page ...

Preview Mode

This document has 6 pages. Sign in to access the full document!

Report

Study Now!

Document Details

Related Documents

American Government - The Judiciary

American Government - Voting and Elections

American Government - The President

American Government - The Mass Media

American Government - The Constitution

American Government - The Bureaucracy

American Government - Public Policy

American Government - Public Opinion

American Government - Political Parties

American Government - Interest Groups

Company

Explore

Study Tools