[stand watie]

SORRY! WRONG ANSWER! "marbury v. madison" is important as a precedent because that is the decision when the USSC (knowingly & unlawfully) SEIZED power that was NOT in the Constitution!

i note you didn't tell me which (if any of those decisions) you AGREE with & find either correct or even wise.

free dixie,sw

[Non-Sequitur]

SORRY! WRONG ANSWER! "marbury v. madison" is important as a precedent because that is the decision when the USSC (knowingly & unlawfully) SEIZED power that was NOT in the Constitution!

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty."

So where in that statement is Chief Justice Marshall wrong? Is it not the duty of the court to interpret and apply the law. Is that not the very definition of 'jurisdiction'? And if not the judiciary then who interprets the constitution? People like you?