马伯里诉麦迪逊案PPT英语演讲用

The persons in the case
Plaintiff(原告)
The presiding judge(主审法官)
Federalist party
(联邦党) John Adams (17351826) The second president of the United States
WilliamV.Marbury
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is
解释法律显然是司法部门的权限范围和责任
The Brief Introduction
The case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed by President John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia but whose commission was not subsequently delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force the new Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents. 庄园主马伯里由于上届政府的疏忽，而未收到“太平绅士”的 委任状，而继任政府的国务卿麦迪逊拒绝将委任状下发，于是 马伯里直接向当时并无实权的最高法院提起诉讼，要求得到自 己的委任状。
• 在最高法院历史上，它的独特职能始终是表述法律和界定政 府的权力。首席大法官约翰•马歇尔（John Marshall）为马伯 里诉麦迪逊案（Marbury v. Madison）所写的意见书提出了 构成美国宪法基础的三项原则。
Three Principles
• First, the Constitution stood above ordinary laws, including those passed by Congress and signed by the President. • Second, the Supreme Court would define the Constitution and say “what the law is.” • Third, the court would invalidate laws that it had decided were in conflict with the Constitution. • 第一，宪法本身高于普通法律，包括国会通过并经过总统 签署的法律。 • 第二，最高法院负责解释宪法，阐明法律原意。 • 第三，最高法院有权将它认为不符合宪法的法律裁定为无 效。
The Summary
Throughout its history, the Supreme Court‟s unique role has been to state the law and to define the powers of the government. John Marshall „s opinion in Marbury v. Madison set three principles that formed the basis of American constitutional law.
The Influence
• There is “Madisonian dilemma” in practice of American Constitutional interpretation ,that is,the freedom of the majority to govern and the rights of the minority remain forever in tension. • As an essential trial of judicial review doctrine,Marbury v. Madison influences deeply on American constitutional history as to worldwide.
(1743-1826) The third president of the U.S
The BackБайду номын сангаасround
On March 3, just before his term was to end, Adams, in an attempt to stymie(阻挠)the incoming Democratic-Republican Congress and administration, appointed 16 Federalist circuit judges and 42 Federalist justices of the peace to offices created by the Judiciary Act of 1801. These appointees, the infamous “Midnight Judges(午夜法官)”, included William Marbury. He had been appointed to the position of justice of the peace(太平绅士) in the District of Columbia.
John Marshall(1755-1835)
Thomas Jefferson
(1762-1835) a successful The fourth Chief Justice(首 businessman 席大法官) of the United States Democraticrepublican party （民主共和党） James Madison (1751-1836) Secretary of State of the United Defendant(被告) States 国务卿
The Results
• "In denying his request, the Court held that it lacked jurisdiction because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act passed by Congress in 1789, which authorized the Court to issue such a writ, was unconstitutional and thus invalid.“ • 马伯里在最高法院起诉是参考了如上所述的1789年《司法 法》第13条，于是马歇尔斩钉截铁地指出，《司法法》这 一条与宪法冲突，非法扩大了最高法院的权限。 • Marbury never became a Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia.
The case of Marbury v. Madison
Inscription on the wall of the Supreme Court (美国最高法 院)Building from Marbury v. Madison, in which Chief Justice John Marshall outlined the concept of judicial review.
The Progress
• While a majority of the commissions were delivered, it proved impossible for all of them to be delivered before Adams's term as president expired. • On March 4, 1801, Thomas Jefferson was sworn in as President. As soon as he was able, he ordered James Madison ,Secretary of the United States, not to deliver the remaining appointments. Without the commissions, the appointees were unable to assume the offices and duties to which they had been appointed. So, the undelivered commissions were void(无 效的).
• 在美国宪法解释实践中长期存在着被学者们所称的“麦迪 逊之两难”问题，即民主多数统治的自由与少数自由权利 之间始终处于一种似乎不可消解的张力之中。本案作为司 法审查制度的奠基案件，在美国乃至世界宪政史上都影响 深远。
That‟s all ! Thank you !!!
The issue
• Does Article III of the Constitution create a "floor" for original jurisdiction, which Congress can add to, or does it create an exhaustive list that Congress can't modify at all? • 申诉人是否有权取得他所要求的委任状？ • If Article III's original jurisdiction is an exhaustive list, but Congress tries to modify it anyway, who wins that conflict, Congress or the Constitution? • 如果他有权，而这种权利已受到侵犯，他的国家的法律是 否向他提供补救办法？ • And, more importantly, who is supposed to decide who wins? • 如果法律确实向他提供补救办法，是否即为本院发出的执 行令？