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).

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Archives

1

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

Is it clear to the reader that John Marshall was both the Secretary of State AND the Justice?[edit]

I wfy'ed the first reference to his name, but left the second ... this [1] diff shows removal of the second by User:White_whirlwind ... I agree with that removal, (our practice is usually to only link the first ref) but wonder if somewhere in the first or second para it should be made clear they are in fact the same person. Thoughts? Maybe I'm the only confused person. I was thinking of inserting "(former Secretary of State)" or similar but could not come up with a construction I liked. ++Lar: t/c 15:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I came here specifically to make the same suggestion for the same reason. (I'm familiar with Marbury v. Madison and I, too, was confused by the current wording.) The cleanest and most effective edit would be to change the first line of the third graf (which currently reads "In an opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Court held firstly that...") to: "In an opinion written by John Marshall, the former Secretary of State who by then had been appointed Chief Justice of the United States, the Court held firstly that..." Neither "John Marshall" not "Secretary of State" would need internal Wiki links, as both would be second-reference; however "Chief Justice of the United States" would require an internal Wiki link. [Note: Technically, Marshall would not require the reiteration of his first name in this proposed revision, as this would be a second-reference mention; however given the tumble of so many names in such a short space, I think reiterating "John" would make it extra clear to readers that this was the same person.]

Bruce Kluger (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to address these concerns. See the article and let me know if it's improved. White Whirlwind 21:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:White_whirlwind]. Thank you for reaching out. No, unfortunately, whatever changes were made do not address the inherent problem. The dual role of John Marshall remains unclear and confusing. I recommend that you review my proposed fix, which I maintain is the cleanest solution to an admittedly confusing element of the story. Without that fix (or something approximating it), the Wikipedia article reads as if it was carelessly written and/or edited. Bruce Kluger (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure your suggestion is any clearer. Yours makes it seem like Marshall was Secretary of State and then Chief Justice, rather than both simultaneously. (Marshall was already Chief Justice when he sealed the commissions, which makes your "had by then been appointed" somewhat misleading.) But in my opinion, the specifics of Marshall's dual role are not important for the purposes of the lead, so I'll change the wording to your suggestion and leave it at that. White Whirlwind 06:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. But the overlap in the two jobs was just four weeks; and the Marshall’s own Wiki entry does describe the jobs as sequential rather than overlapping (i.e., “Prior to joining the Court, Marshall briefly served as both the U.S. Secretary of State…” etc.) But, yeah, better to be slightly askew than confusing. Thanks so much for making the change. Bruce Kluger (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laws applied[edit]

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'?[edit]

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]