Answer: The origin of the case was somewhat trivial, but had great implications for the role of the Supreme Court in government. Marbury was appointed by John Adams, the president before Madison, as a district judge in Washington DC. When Madison became president, he didn't deliver the papers to finalize Marbury's appointment.
Marbury took him to Court, and although the Court initially sided with Marbury, the court, with John Marshall serving as Chief Justice, ultimately determined that the law that allowed Marbury to take the case to court was not constitutional. This meant that the law was struck down.
This was the first incidence of the Supreme Court exercising judicial review, the review of laws to determine constitutionality and their rejection if they are not, in the history of the United States. It was a landmark case not for the spat between Marbury and Madison over a district judgeship, but because it marked a huge expansion of the power of the Supreme Court (and thus the judicial branch).
We have seen the power of judicial review exercised in many cases since this one, such as Miranda vs Arizona (which established the law that police must read you your 'Miranda Rights' when they arrest you) and Plessy vs Ferguson, which determined that laws governing "seperate but equal" facilities for people of different races were in theory inherently unequal, and in practice clearly offered worse facilities to people of color.
Answer:
Explanation:
Tariffs are taxes on imports. They effectively raise the prices of those imports, providing an edge to domestic companies in the same markets. Governments usually impose tariffs to help domestic companies, or sometimes to punish foreign competitors for unfair trading practices.
How do tariffs work to protect infant industries? ... They shield new industries in the early stages of their development from the competition of more mature rivals. They raise the trade barriers for imports of child-care products. They increase competition for a new business, forcing it to be more productive.
please mark me as brainiest!?
<span>Answer: persons consumption of the good does not leave less for others to consume ( non rivulrouse consumption)
2 joint consumption- we can all consume at the same time
3 consumers strategically do not pay producers for their output because of chronic free riding.
4 once it is produced it is not economically viable to exlude the free rider.</span>
1612.12 is what $25 american dollars is worth in Indian rupeez
The correct answer is the Helsinki Accords.
The Nuclear test ban treaty was a document signed by Kennedy that forbid testing of nuclear weapons except if it took place underground.
SALT II was the strategic arms limitation treaty signed by President Carter and the leader of the Soviet Union. This reduced the amount of weapons that both countries possessed.
The Truman Doctrine was focused on giving financial assistance to countries that were in jeopardy of falling to communism. In this doctrine, Truman asked Congress to give $400 million in aid to the countries of Greece and Turkey.
This shows that the Helsinki Accords can be the only correct answer.
