Skip to content
Solved Assignments

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

This document is a study guide for a midterm exam on Marbury v. Madison and judicial review, likely in a political science course.

Preview 2 of 6 pages

See the first 2 pages exactly as they appear in the document.

  1. Page 1
    Read page 1 as text

    POL353 Midterm Exam Study Guide Marbury v. Madison - JUDICAL REVIEW  What the Court Ruled: Marbury was entitled to his commission, the court ordered a writ of mandamus to Madison requesting he pay Marbury. o Mandamus: A court order issued to a government official to do something.  Why the court ruled that way: The court determined that Marbury was officially appointed and had a right to his commission. The court said that if rights are violated there should be a remedy. The court determined that the best way to remedy the violated right was to issue the writ requesting the commission.  Why the courts ruling is important: Through the issuance of the writ of mandamus the court claimed the power of judicial review . Cooper v. Aaron - ICORPORATION  What the court ruled: The court ruled that Arkansas, despite the violence and 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 the responsibility of the states, and therefore they are not bound to obey federal court rulings. The court cited the 14 th Amendment to apply the ruling to the states, where it says, “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.” The court established in Brown v. Board that segregated schools were inherently unequal keeping segregated schools in Little Rock denies African Americans equal protection.  Why the courts ruling is important: Selectively Applied the courts ruling in Brown v. Board through the 14 th Amendment Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) - casual connection, injury has to be committed, STANDING  What the court ruled: The court ruled that the defenders of wildlife did not have standing, because they could not prove injury.  Why the court ruled that way: The court ruled that since the defenders of wildlife did not have immediate plans to travel to see the animals that were going extinct they did not have standing. o The court cites 3 things plaintiffs must satisfy before they can grant standing:  1: Plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”; an invasion of a legally - protected interest which is concrete and particularized and actual and imminent NOT conjectural or hypothetical  2. There must be some casual connection between the injury and the conduct complained of – the injury has to be fairly t raceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court.

  2. Page 2

4 more pages in the full document

Unlock it once and it stays in your library, ready to chat with or turn into flashcards.

Unlock the full document

More Political Science study materials

See all

Study this document with CramX

Once it is in your library, every tool can work from it.