When Chief Justice John Marshall wrote "A law repugnant to the Constitution is void" in the case Marbury v. Madison, what was he
claiming? A. The Framers should have taken more care designing the legislative branch.
B. Laws unsupported by the Constitution are automatically unlawful.
C. The Supreme Court will take over lawmaking duties should it be necessary.
D. The Supreme Court has the right to declare laws of Congress unconstitutional.
3. D. The Supreme Court has the right to declare laws of Congress unconstitutional. It was sort of a roundabout way in which the principle of judicial review was asserted by the Supreme Court in the case of <em>Marbury v. Madison</em>. William Marbury had been appointed Justice of the Peace for the District of Columbia by outgoing president John Adams -- one of a number of such last-minute appointments made by Adams. When Thomas Jefferson came into office as president, he directed his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver many of the commission papers for appointees such as Marbury. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court directly to hear his case, as a provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 had made possible. The Court said that particular provision of the Judiciary Act was in conflict with Article III of the Constitution, and so they could not issue a specific ruling in Marbury's case (which they believe he should have won).
The photograph above speaks about the Tianamen square incident in a way that it<span> shows the determination of the protestors and how the Chinese military overwhelmed them - as seen with the humongous tanks and one protestor bravely standing before them.</span>
