Talk:Marbury v. Madison

Is it clear to the reader that John Marshall was both the Secretary of State AND the Justice?
I wfy'ed the first reference to his name, but left the second ... this diff shows removal of the second by User:White_whirlwind   ... I agree with that removal, (our practice is usually to only link the first ref) but wonder if somewhere in the first or second para it should be made clear they are in fact the same person. Thoughts? Maybe I'm the only confused person. I was thinking of inserting "(former Secretary of State)" or similar but could not come up with a construction I liked. ++Lar: t/c 15:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I came here specifically to make the same suggestion for the same reason. (I'm familiar with Marbury v. Madison and I, too, was confused by the current wording.) The cleanest and most effective edit would be to change the first line of the third graf (which currently reads "In an opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Court held firstly that...") to: "In an opinion written by John Marshall, the former Secretary of State who by then had been appointed Chief Justice of the United States, the Court held firstly that..." Neither "John Marshall" not "Secretary of State" would need internal Wiki links, as both would be second-reference; however "Chief Justice of the United States" would require an internal Wiki link. [Note: Technically, Marshall would not require the reiteration of his first name in this proposed revision, as this would be a second-reference mention; however given the tumble of so many names in such a short space, I think reiterating "John" would make it extra clear to readers that this was the same person.]
 * Bruce Kluger (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Tried to address these concerns. See the article and let me know if it's improved.  White Whirlwind   21:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, User:White_whirlwind]. Thank you for reaching out. No, unfortunately, whatever changes were made do not address the inherent problem. The dual role of John Marshall remains unclear and confusing. I recommend that you review my proposed fix, which I maintain is the cleanest solution to an admittedly confusing element of the story. Without that fix (or something approximating it), the Wikipedia article reads as if it was carelessly written and/or edited. Bruce Kluger (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure your suggestion is any clearer. Yours makes it seem like Marshall was Secretary of State and then Chief Justice, rather than both simultaneously. (Marshall was already Chief Justice when he sealed the commissions, which makes your "had by then been appointed" somewhat misleading.) But in my opinion, the specifics of Marshall's dual role are not important for the purposes of the lead, so I'll change the wording to your suggestion and leave it at that.  White Whirlwind   06:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I see your point. But the overlap in the two jobs was just four weeks; and the Marshall’s own Wiki entry does describe the jobs as sequential rather than overlapping (i.e., “Prior to joining the Court, Marshall briefly served as both the U.S. Secretary of State…” etc.) But, yeah, better to be slightly askew than confusing. Thanks so much for making the change. Bruce Kluger (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Laws applied
Infobox says "Laws applied: U.S. Const. arts. I, III; Judiciary Act of 1789 § 13". Article I of course falls within the scope of Congress and its policy-making (i.e. laws). Wouldn't be the case of referencing Article I also directly in the text if possible? And, secondarily, shouldn't "Category:United States Constitution Article One case law" be added? Lone Internaut (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

'Void'?
In the captions to the 4 portraits besides the 'Background' section, Jefferson is attributed with the belief that 'Marbury's undelivered commission was void'. Is that so: the Court held it was not void, of course. Marbury had the title of JP, just lacked an easy means to prove it. (No point rocking up to the JP court and demanding to take a seat - or writing to the Treasury demanding the salary - if you didn't have the Commission or a court order to evidence it). Would Jefferson even have thought in such legalistic terms - 'void' having a distinct legal meaning. Wouldn't it be truer to say in the caption that Jefferson 'believed withholding Marbury's commission was a legal way to prevent him assuming the judgeship' ? Laworr1 (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)