[Cboldt]

This ruling came up in discussions about whether lower courts had the power to go against legal holdings by higher courts, and this was cited as an example of a lower court doing just that. But as the above shows, the court was not doing that after all.

Cases are frequently misconstrued, even (maybe especially) by courts.

Marbury v. Madison is cited for the proposition that the Court can set or make law (which it can); but by "reading on" a mere two paragraphs, one cannot escape the statment by Marshall that Courts must rule in subservience to the Constitution, and to statute - and when THOSE two authorities clash, it is the Constitution that must prevail.

[inquest]

Marbury v. Madison is cited for the proposition that the Court can set or make law (which it can); but by "reading on" a mere two paragraphs, one cannot escape the statment by Marshall that Courts must rule in subservience to the Constitution, and to statute - and when THOSE two authorities clash, it is the Constitution that must prevail.

That's a point that I've constantly tried to make to others on this amd other fora, often to little avail. Marshall was saying, not that the court had the "power" to strike down unconsitutional laws, but that it was powerless to uphold them. That's a very important distinction.