Almost the first act of the Supreme Court was treason. In Marbury v. Madison, we see the convoluted, political thinking of the time. True, it was a moment rare in the history of nations that a national power structure must define itself. But, a closer look at the actual case reveals the self-serving, illogical conclusions typical of the Supreme Court today.
Ironically, the part of Marbury v. Madison that the Court found unconstitutional, which gave it the ability to interpret rights, rather than merely rule that a law is either Constitutional or unconstitutional, was finding that when the Judiciary Act of 1789 was passed that it gave the Supreme Court more jurisdiction than the Constitution allowed.
The correct ruling in this case should have been that since the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction in the case that it was in appropriate for it to hear it unless it heard it as a consequence of a lower court ruling. As is clear, by Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers
and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall
have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme
Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such
Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Marbury's case claimed that he had a right to his commission as a Justice of the Peace, not an Ambassador, not a Minister or Consul. He was not part of a case wherein a state was a party and so, the Supreme Court never should have heard the case. It did so to make a point as is clear in this look at Marshall's reasoning from Streetlaw:
Chief Justice Marshall understood the danger that this case posed to the power of the Supreme Court. Because Madison was President Jefferson’s secretary of state and Jefferson was head of the Democratic Party while Chief Justice Marshall and Marbury were Federalists, President Jefferson was almost certain to direct Madison to refuse to deliver the commission to Marbury. If the Court required Madison to deliver the commission and Madison refused, the Court had no power to force him to comply, and, therefore the Court would look weak. If the Court did not act, it would look like the justices made their decision out of the fear that Madison would not obey their decision.
Marshall wanted to establish the role of the Supreme Court as having the power to interpret the Constitution. It might have been their role to interpret laws in accordance with the plain language of the Constitution. But, not to interpret the Constitution itself, certainly not to interpret definitions of words in order to arrive at opposite definitions and therefore opposite conclusions.
Few know the outcome of the Marbury v. Madison case. They know that it established the Supreme Court's right to interpret the Constitution. It is what is taught in school and the Court has no reason now to look on the actions of John Marshall as anything other than appropriate.
The ruling is almost as insane as the justifications for the Supreme Court to have ruled in the case at all. It was agreed by the Court that Marbury did indeed deserve to receive his commission, that all the functions of government had taken place, but that the Court did not have the right to issue a writ of mandamus and so ruled that Marbury had a right to his commission, but that the Court could not force the Secretary of State (Madison) to deliver the commission to him.
Further, it ruled, without jurisdiction, that the part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which has governed these federal courts for over two hundred years almost without change, was unconstitutional in the fact that as part of the law it gave the Supreme Court the ability to issue a writ of Mandamus, which the Court claimed that was a power not given to it by the Constitution. Yet, the Law was never vacated. Since the whole of the law was not vacated, how is it possible that the Court edited the law? It can send the law back to the legislature to bring it into compliance with the Constitution, but justices cannot be allowed to edit laws, rewrite laws, etc.
Somehow, in all of this, the court failed to recognize that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case at all, much less rule on particulars of it, including accepting for itself, for eternity, the right to interpret the Constitution. This case is how we got here, it was the first act of treason and it has followed a path through Dredd Scott, Roe v Wade and the Obamacare rulings to show us that these Justices are criminal. They have corrupted our system from the start and their rulings have led us into slavery, denied to us our rights and relegated us to positions below that of citizens.