Our Marbury

109 Pages Posted: 26 May 2005 Last revised: 11 Oct 2021

Date Written: January 1, 2003


This book-length paper definitively rescues Marbury v. Madison from its technical critics. A reassessment of the familiar historical narrative sets the stage for its responses to criticism of Chief Justice Marshall's statutory construction, developed in a series of arguments, some of which have not previously been broached. The heart of the article is its demolition of the current fashionable critique of Marshall's constitutional interpretation. The paper helpfully explains the structure of this critique. It shows that not a single one of the "precedents" cited as contrary to Marbury holds water. It then goes on to establish that the critics' preferred reading of the Constitution has no antecedents in history or law. It reveals that this reading would in fact subvert the Constitution. While the paper refrains from joining the old debate about judicial review, the paper includes novel commentary on the judicial review passages of the case.

JEL Classification: K00

Suggested Citation

Weinberg, Louise, Our Marbury (January 1, 2003). Virginia Law Review, Vol. 89, p. 1235, 2003, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=729144

Louise Weinberg (Contact Author)

University of Texas at Austin ( email )

2317 Speedway
Austin, TX Texas 78712
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics