HLS in the World | Marbury v. Madison

As part of Harvard Law School's bicentennial celebration, Supreme Court advocates and constitutional law scholars Laurence Tribe ’66, Harvard’s Carl M. Loeb University Professor, and Kathleen Sullivan ’81, former dean of Stanford Law School, reargued the landmark 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, in the Ames Courtroom. Hearing the case was an all-star quartet of HLS alumni who serve on federal appeals courts: Merrick Garland ’77, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, presided. He was joined by Judge Joseph Greenaway Jr. ’81 of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, Judge Jane Kelly ’91 of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, and Judge Patricia Millett ’88, who also serves on the D.C. Circuit. Harvard Law School Story Senior Lecturer Susan Davies served as faculty host for the reargument.

[DonYutuc]

This is a very good video for we the people who aren't legal pundits. Harvard is "the institution" well known to the world of law. Thank you for posting. 📫 ❤

[mt]

40:30 “Don’t take it from me. Take it from my client. He wrote the Constitution.”

[πάνταῥεῖ-σδ]

I imagine Merrick Garland thinking, "man, I could have been an actual Supreme Court Justice. Now all I can do is pretend to be John Marshall..."

[robertlembo]

If only these incredible lawyers knew how microphones worked, I might have actually been able to enjoy this video...

[ariannadavici]

The Marbury VS Madison was the first constitutional review of legislation. Also, thank you so much for this video since I am studying the case and I started one hour ago. What amazes me is that there are videos like this and I am so thankful because I really understood the case better. Thank you

[Gamecubesupreme]

Judge Joseph Greenaway - "Let's stay in the present. I like 1803!"

I feel like it took Laurence Tribe every fiber of his body to not respond with "Now I don't see color but...are you sure?"

[TruthLiberty]

Ultimately, the constitution is to be interpreted according to the "meeting of the minds" of those parties who agreed to it (contract law).
And, so it is, even though the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the constitution in the first instance (judicial review), the States, with 3/4 support/agreement, can amend the constitution to make clear their understanding of it.
Wherefore;
When any such interpretation by judicial review is sufficiently in error to so motive the parties, the parties have avenue for having the final say of the meaning of the social contract.

[handle]

Our lords of kindness and refuge giving 😊

[jgizzy]

It only gets better the longer you listen, as unfortunate as that results in my limited free time, I learned that the arguments at the highest levels can often be at the base, "I believe that" and "I view it as". Perspectives really.

[edipyuksel]

I wish the camera person was alert enough to show the faces of those while they were introduced. I had to skip the introduction, since it was not functional...

[danroberts]

The difference between the ideals of law and the actual practice is, as I say in my book about judicial corruption, "...often a wide a dismal gulf."

[eyescandeceive]

Hey, is this the same Charles Lee that Hamilton complained about?
Instead of me, he promotes Charles Lee, makes him second in command! "I'm a

[Oath]

Garland as the Chief Justice John Marshall....what a denigration of

[mehdibaghbadran]

Any disagreement should have reasons and sometimes evidence’s

[cruz]

Back then the Justice of the peace was paid by receiving a "cut" of the judgement....

[mehdibaghbadran]

Don’t judge any one’s who’s you don’t even know for sure, and he will not be able to define himself!

[EliotMcLellan]

I WISH I WAS TOO DEAD TO CARE IF INDEED I CARED AT ALL ... YOU DON'T NEED TO BOTHER, I DON'T NEED TO BE ... SO YOU FED ME SHIT TO DIGEST ... ONCE I HOLD ON I WON'T LET GO TILL IT BLEEDS LOOKING AT YOU THROUGH THE GLASS DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH TIME HAS PASSED ....

[davidparsons]

We also have the right of freedom of movement witch is defined as travel and we have a right to travel without a license and registration for privete gain as long as we are not getting paid for hire privete travel is a fundamental right to go from point A to point B in our everyday life correct the matter of fact new Hampshire understand that right its for all 50 states agencies are not happy about it but they have no say over man and woman that are not in commerce for hire

[gregorywells]

First lady needs to learn how microphones work. So distracting for her to keep fading up and down because she moves her mouth away from the mic.

[wanered]

Constitution is the rule of law
No law made by any branch that is in conflict is not law it's repugnant. Then it's void. Any part or conflict. If any part then all is void.