This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

On the surface, the case itself seems a minor one at best. William Marbury, a last-minute judicial appointee of outgoing Federalist president John Adams, demanded redress from the Supreme Court when his commission was not delivered. But Chief Justice John Marshall could clearly see the danger his demand posed for a weak court filled with Federalist judges. Wary of the Court’s standing with the new Republican administration of Thomas Jefferson, Marshall hit upon a solution that was both principled and pragmatic. He determined that while Marbury was justified in his suit, the law on which his claim was based was in conflict with the Constitution. It was the first time that the Court struck down an act of Congress as unconstitutional, thus establishing the doctrine of judicial review that designates the Court as chief interpreter of the Constitution. Nelson relates the story behind Marbury and explains why it is a foundational case for understanding the Supreme Court. He reveals how Marshall deftly avoided a dangerous political confrontation between the executive and judicial branches by upholding the rule of law. Nelson also shows how Marshall managed to shore up the Court’s prestige and power rather than have it serve partisan political agendas. Nelson expands upon his original historical analysis by providing a more complete and nuanced account of eighteenth-century constitutionalism and the early development of judicial review. The new material includes chapters on nullification of legislation in local courts, James Otis’s articulation of the doctrine of judicial review in the Writs of Assistance Case, the use of this doctrine in response to the Stamp Act and Townshend Act, and the expansion of judicial review in the State Cases. This revised and expanded edition provides a fuller picture of colonial America and a richer understanding of Marshall’s foundational decision.

This book, first published in 1914, contains five historical essays. Three of them are on the concept of judicial review, which is defined as the power of a court to review and invalidate unlawful acts by the legislative and executive branches of government. One chapter addresses the historical controversy over states' rights. Another concerns the Pelatiah Webster Myth�the notion that the US Constitution was the work of a single person. In "Marbury v. Madisonand the Doctrine of Judicial Review," Edward S. Corwin analyzes the legal source of the power of the Supreme Court to review acts of Congress. "We, the People" examines the rights of states in relation to secession and nullification. "The Pelatiah Webster Myth" demolishes Hannis Taylor's thesis that Webster was the "secret" author of the constitution. "The Dred Scott Decision" considers Chief Justice Taney's argument concerning Scott's title to citizenship under the Constitution. "Some Possibilities in the Way of Treaty-Making" discusses how the US Constitution relates to international treaties. Matthew J. Franck's new introduction to this centennial edition situates Corwin's career in the history of judicial review both as a concept and as a political reality.

Excerpt from The Doctrine of Judicial Review, Its Legal and Historical Basis, and Other Essays In the preparation of another volume, not yet published, I have encountered a number of questions involving controversies important to the student of American Constitutional History, an extended consideration of which however in those pages I felt to be out place. The following studies present my conclusions with regard to these questions, and the grounds of them. In the principal essay, I have endeavored to present judicial review as the outcome of a view of legislative power which arose in consequence of the astonishing abuse of their powers by the early State legislatures but which was first appreciated for its full worth by the Convention that framed the Constitution of the United States. Incidentally I have, I trust, laid to rest that most inconclusive "explanation" of judicial review which dwells on the idea that a legislative measure contrary to the constitution is not law and never was. The alleged explanation totally ignores the crucial question, which is, Why is it the judicial view of the constitution that legislative measures have to conform to? The article on the Dred Scott Decision treats of the most dramatic episode in the history of judicial review, though one that is by no means the best illustrative of the spirit of the institution. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.