It seems to me that if you were to omit the circumstances surrounding the decision in regards
to the impeachments of judges, and the conflict between Jefferson and Marshall, that the
decision could be construed as a misinterpretation of the Constitution on the part of Justice
Marshall. In looking at the conditions that surround the decision, it would seem to me that
Justice Marshall did intentionally misquote the Constitution for his own purposes. As Dr. Rose
states in the article, and which I agree with, states “…the changes he made in Article III, Section
2, paragraph 2 are too extensive and their implication are too important for them to have been
oversights or careless mistakes. Marshall was too intelligent and too diligent for that.” (Rose,
213) It seems that the omission of the words “both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions,
and under such Regulations, as the Congress shall make” changes the meaning of the Article to
seem more as a matter of fact statement, rather than allow for any exception to it. More
importantly, the misquotation is the difference in Justice Marshall being right, rather than being
wrong if the omissions were left in. Further credence to Justice Marshall doing this intentionally
as stated by Rose, is that “…he quoted the Constitution five other times in the Marbury opinion
and in four of those he did so totally correctly…” (Rose, 213)
The reason why I believe that the decision matters is because the decision may seem to not
only benefit himself in regards to his personal issues with Jefferson, Marshall may have felt
justified in doing so in order to maintain and protect judicial review and the sanctity of the
Supreme Court.
In the information age that we live in today, I do not believe that this could happen these days
in the Supreme Court. In the days of Marshall, there was very little doubt as to the decision of a
Supreme Court Justice, and since the Constitution itself was in its infancy would have been
easier to misconstrue. These days, there is so much fact checking and armchair lawyers who
would pick over the words of any decision made that it would be very difficult to pull of this sort
of coup in the age of information that we live in today. Not only that, the other justices would
have much to weigh in on any decision made in order to keep something like this from
happening again.
to the impeachments of judges, and the conflict between Jefferson and Marshall, that the
decision could be construed as a misinterpretation of the Constitution on the part of Justice
Marshall. In looking at the conditions that surround the decision, it would seem to me that
Justice Marshall did intentionally misquote the Constitution for his own purposes. As Dr. Rose
states in the article, and which I agree with, states “…the changes he made in Article III, Section
2, paragraph 2 are too extensive and their implication are too important for them to have been
oversights or careless mistakes. Marshall was too intelligent and too diligent for that.” (Rose,
213) It seems that the omission of the words “both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions,
and under such Regulations, as the Congress shall make” changes the meaning of the Article to
seem more as a matter of fact statement, rather than allow for any exception to it. More
importantly, the misquotation is the difference in Justice Marshall being right, rather than being
wrong if the omissions were left in. Further credence to Justice Marshall doing this intentionally
as stated by Rose, is that “…he quoted the Constitution five other times in the Marbury opinion
and in four of those he did so totally correctly…” (Rose, 213)
The reason why I believe that the decision matters is because the decision may seem to not
only benefit himself in regards to his personal issues with Jefferson, Marshall may have felt
justified in doing so in order to maintain and protect judicial review and the sanctity of the
Supreme Court.
In the information age that we live in today, I do not believe that this could happen these days
in the Supreme Court. In the days of Marshall, there was very little doubt as to the decision of a
Supreme Court Justice, and since the Constitution itself was in its infancy would have been
easier to misconstrue. These days, there is so much fact checking and armchair lawyers who
would pick over the words of any decision made that it would be very difficult to pull of this sort
of coup in the age of information that we live in today. Not only that, the other justices would
have much to weigh in on any decision made in order to keep something like this from
happening again.
