Coming of the Revolution 1763-1775

Starting from the position that officer accountability is a core value of American constitutionalism, this article reassesses MARBURY V. MADISON in light of the indictable acts connected to the nondelivery of Marbury’s commission. First, it reads Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion against the background of personal and political hostility among the principals, including between Marbury and President Jefferson. Second, it identifies avenues of further redress open to Marbury before and after the Supreme Court’s refusal of the mandamus order, and it considers why they were not pursued. Finally, having identified alternative procedural traditions on which Marshall could have drawn, and reviewed decisions by state and federal judges in analogous suits against officers, it concludes that MARBURY'S deepest contribution was to elevate the principle of jurisdiction over the imperative of remedy in constitutional decision making.

Cold Case File: Indictable Acts and Officer Accountability in Marbury v. Madison

Contemporary European regional policy can be understood as a set of supplementary processes of ‘remedievalisation’ which, as to the relationship between EU member states and the EU itself, have been taking place for decades. The present phenomenon of remedievalisation is apparent in a dual counter-activity to a process that has in the last centuries constituted the modern European state. Pre-modern structures become visible first through an administrative supplement of the borderline by a border region, which is subsequently institutionalised as an area with inhabitants sharing a common and border-transcending mentality.

Remediävalisierung II: Zur Programmatik der Europäischen Regionalpolitik

Starting from the position that officer accountability is a core value of American constitutionalism, this article reassesses Marbury v. Madison in light of the indictable acts connected to the nondelivery of Marbury's commission. First, it reads Chief Justice Marshall's opinion against the background of personal and political hostility among the principals, including between Marbury and President Jefferson. Second, it identifies avenues of further redress open to Marbury before and after the Supreme Court's refusal of the mandamus order, and it considers why they were not pursued. Finally, having identified alternative procedural traditions on which Marshall could have drawn, and reviewed decisions by state and federal judges in analogous suits against officers, it concludes that Marbury's deepest contribution was to elevate the principle of jurisdiction over the imperative of remedy in constitutional decision making.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0003055413000117

The assertion that ‘Equity in the early American colonies is a subject that still awaits complete research’ is more true of some colonies than of others. Because of marked differences in founding and internal growth, the colony-by-colony approach has been conceded to be appropriate; but this piecemeal approach has resulted in the overwriting of Massachusetts's meagre and testy involvement with the chancery style of justice, while Virginia's much richer involvement has received too little treatment.

Marvin K. Singleton

Papers

New Light on the Chancery Side of Virginia's Evolution to Statehood