Instructions for writing Paper: Please write a critical, analytical, research paper analyzing the assigned topic below. Your analysis must NOT exceed 300 words EXCLUSIVE of Works cited. Use of personal pronouns and contractions are not allowed. Proper citations within text MUST be strictly observed at all times. Use of encyclopedia as a source is prohibited and so is citing the example paper and class lecture as sources. Copy and paste entire paper topic in the top of the page in which you post your paper. Paper topic is NOT part of Word Count nor is works cited. Paragraphs must not exceed the normal structure of a paragraph and must be clearly separated from other paragraphs in the paper. You must show WORD COUNT at the end of the paper and every effort must be made to respect assigned word count. It behooves everyone to carefully edit your paper before submission. There are consequences for failing to follow ALL instructions provided for writing ALL assignments from the beginning of the class. YOU MUST FOLLOW THEM. This assignment may be your last for you to demonstrate the development of critical, analytical, research and writing skills. Note the number of points this assignment is worth. Thank you. JUDICIAL REVIEW In 1803, the Supreme Court of the United States under the leadership of Chief Justice John Marshall, former Secretary of State under President John Adams, presided over the Marbury v Madison case and handed down its decision which brought the concept of Judicial Review long practiced at the State level to the Federal level. This case established the concept of Judicial Review at the Federal level for the first time and remains a Starre Decisis in American Jurisprudence to this day. ASSIGNED PAPER TOPIC Analyze the concept of Judicial Review at the Federal level and the crucial role played by Chief Justice John Marshall in the formulation of this concept. Ensure that your analysis first place this case in its proper social, historical, and political context, that it systematically engages the politics of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist sentiments of the time, and that it clearly and systematically demonstrates the impact this case continues to have on American Jurisprudence to this day. ========================== EXAMPLE OF A MUCH LONGER VERSION OF PAPER OF SAME TOPIC FOR REVIEW Below is an example of a much longer version of same topic for your review.  I am NOT touting it as the best paper ever! Rather, am providing it as an example of an assignment albeit a much longer version although you are being asked to write a  shorter paper of 300 WORDS. Please read it and learn something from it. Prof. Woolcock ================ EXAMPLE OF A CRITICAL, ANALYTICAL, RESEARCH PAPER (long version) Topic:  Analyze the concept of Judicial Review at the Federal level and the crucial role played by then Chief Justice John Marshall in the formulation of this concept in the1803 Starre Decisis case of Marbury v Madison. Ensure that your anal ...

1. Instructions for writing Paper:
Please write a critical, analytical, research paper analyzing the
assigned topic below. Your analysis must NOT exceed 300
words EXCLUSIVE of Works cited.
Use of personal pronouns and contractions are not allowed.
Proper citations within text MUST be strictly observed at all
times. Use of encyclopedia as a source is prohibited and so is
citing the example paper and class lecture as sources.
Copy and paste entire paper topic in the top of the page in
which you post your paper. Paper topic is NOT part of Word
Count nor is works cited.
Paragraphs must not exceed the normal structure of a paragraph
and must be clearly separated from other paragraphs in the
paper. You must show WORD COUNT at the end of the paper
and every effort must be made to respect assigned word count.
It behooves everyone to carefully edit your paper before
submission.
There are consequences for failing to follow ALL instructions
provided for writing ALL assignments from the beginning of the
class. YOU MUST FOLLOW THEM. This assignment may be
your last for you to demonstrate the development of critical,
analytical, research and writing skills. Note the number of
points this assignment is worth.
Thank you.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
In 1803, the Supreme Court of the United States under the
leadership of Chief Justice John Marshall, former Secretary of
State under President John Adams, presided over the Marbury v
Madison case and handed down its decision which brought the
concept of Judicial Review long practiced at the State level to
the Federal level. This case established the concept of Judicial
Review at the Federal level for the first time and remains a
Starre Decisis in American Jurisprudence to this day.

2. ASSIGNED PAPER TOPIC
Analyze the concept of Judicial Review at the Federal level and
the crucial role played by Chief Justice John Marshall in the
formulation of this concept. Ensure that your analysis first place
this case in its proper social, historical, and political context,
that it systematically engages the politics of the Federalist and
Anti-Federalist sentiments of the time, and that it clearly and
systematically demonstrates the impact this case continues to
have on American Jurisprudence to this day.
==========================
EXAMPLE OF A MUCH LONGER VERSION OF PAPER OF
SAME TOPIC FOR REVIEW
Below is an example of a much longer version of same topic for
your review. I am NOT touting it as the best paper ever!
Rather, am providing it as an example of an assignment albeit a
much longer version although you are being asked to write a
shorter paper of 300 WORDS. Please read it and learn
something from it.
Prof. Woolcock
================
EXAMPLE OF A CRITICAL, ANALYTICAL, RESEARCH
PAPER (long version)
Topic: Analyze the concept of Judicial Review at the Federal
level and the crucial role played by then Chief Justice John
Marshall in the formulation of this concept in the1803 Starre
Decisis case of Marbury v Madison. Ensure that your analysis is
not a mere rehearsal of that Starre Decisis but rather a critical,
systematic and coherent examination of the politics of that time
and how that politics was played out at the judiciary level
between the Federalists and anti-Federalists.
(PLEASE NOTE: The example below is of a much longer paper
than the one assigned for you to write. This example is provided
for you to get a sense of a longer paper on the SAME topic even
though you are asked to write a much shorter paper --300 words
ONLY)
LONG VERSION OF SAME TOPIC

3. In the aftermath of a bitterly divisive presidential election in
1800 between President John Adams, a Federalist, and Vice-
President Thomas Jefferson, an anti-Federalist, lame duck
President John Adams made many judicial appointments; among
them Secretary of State John Marshall, a Federalist, was
confirmed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and William
Marbury, also a Federalist, received a commission as a Justice
of the Peace in the District of Columbia (Supreme Court
History). The commission paperwork for Marbury and others
was not delivered in the waning days of Adam's presidency.
After President Thomas Jefferson took office, he directed
Secretary of State James Madison not to deliver some
commission papers, including Marbury's. Marbury and three
other men petitioned the Supreme Court to issue a writ of
mandamus to force Madison to honor the commissions (Supreme
Court History).
As a backdrop to Marbury vs. Madison (1803), the Founding
Fathers' conflicting views between a strong federal government
versus states' rights continued to permeate politics at the federal
level. The political bitterness during the presidential election of
1800 took the form of inflammatory rhetoric between the
Federalists and anti-Federalist; both sides warned of carnage
should the other party's candidate be elected (Bellesiles 59).
The political canvas of Marbury vs. Madison includes many
months of volatility and uncertainty regarding who would
become president; the presidential election of 1800 was
prolonged not only because voting of the populace was spread
out from April to October 1800, but because the rules at that
time allowed for tie votes to be decided by the House (Freeman
87). Thirty-six votes of the House were required to break the
tie and declare Thomas Jefferson the president (Freeman 88).
The defeat for the Federalists in 1800 was resounding; not only
did they lose the executive branch to the Anti-Federalists, but
they also lost Congress, leaving the judicial branch, via
Marshall’s appointment as Chief Justice, as the only branch of
the federal government with a significant Federalist presence.

4. In addition, a few years prior to Marshall's appointment as
Chief Justice, Congress had expanded the powers of the
Supreme Court. Article III Section II specifies limited cases in
which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, which
includes questions of the constitutionality of state and federal
laws; in other cases, the Court has appellate jurisdiction. The
Constitution gave Congress the freedom to determine the
number of justices and establish lower federal courts; Congress
passed the Judiciary Act of 1789 which established five
associate and one chief justice for the Supreme Court, and
created the federal circuit and district courts. Section 13 of the
Judiciary Act of 1789 expanded upon the role of the Supreme
Court as the original decider, to include the power to issue writs
(Thompson Reuters).
Marbury vs. Madison (1803) presented Chief Justice John
Marshall with a dilemma; if the Court's decision did not appear
to be politically independent, the fledgling Supreme Court could
be in danger of being accused of playing politics at the judiciary
level between the Federalists and anti-Federalists. Marshall
brilliantly asked and answered three questions in his written
decision in Marbury vs. Madison (1803). First, does Marbury
have a legal right to the commission he demands? Second, do
the laws of the United States allow the courts to grant a remedy
(in the form of a writ) to Marbury? Third, if so, does the
Supreme Court have the jurisdiction to issue the writ? The
Supreme Court decided Marbury had a right to his commission,
that he had a right to a remedy (a writ), and the law must
provide him with a remedy. Marshall wrote that the courts must
protect the rights of individuals, even against the president of
the United States.
It was in answering the third question that Marshall addressed
the issue of Judicial Review. Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of
1789 gave the Supreme Court the right to grant Marbury's writ,
but the Court ruled that Section 13 was unconstitutional because
it expanded the Supreme Courts' powers of original jurisdiction
beyond those given to the Court in Article III of the

5. Constitution. Marshall wrote that, "The authority, therefore,
given to the Supreme Court, by the act establishing the judicial
courts of the United States, to issue writs of mandamus to
public officers, appears not to be warranted by the constitution"
(Thompson Reuters 2015.) Chief Justice John Marshall's beliefs
are summarized in one of his most profound statements from the
Marbury vs. Madison (1803) decision, "It is emphatically the
province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law
is." Marshall had the political independence to rule as he did
because Article III Section I of the Constitution grants Supreme
Court justices lifetime terms of appointment; they may be
removed from office only for inappropriate behavior, and their
compensation can never be decreased. Therefore, justices are
immune from the changing political whims of the president and
Congress, and from political retaliation.
Through the Starre Decisis ruling in Marbury vs. Madison
(1803), Marshall’s appointment as Chief Justice quickly proved
to be a turning point in the importance of the Supreme Court;
this ruling established the concept of judicial review, showed
that the Supreme Court stands as the final arbitrator of the
constitutionality of laws enacted by the legislative and
executive branches, and firmly ensconced the Supreme Court as
the primary source of checks and balances on the other two
branches of the federal government.
Works Cited
Bellesiles, Michael A. The Soil Will Be Soaked with Blood. In:
Horn, John, Jan Ellen Louis, and Peter S. Onuf, editors. The
Revolution of 1800: Democracy, Race, and the New Republic.
University of Virginia. 2002. Print.
Freeman, Joanne B. Corruption and Compromise in the
Election of 1800. In: Horn, John, Jan Ellen Louis, and Peter S.
Onuf, editors. The Revolution of 1800: Democracy, Race, and
the New Republic. University of Virginia. 2002. Print.
Marbury vs. Madison. Majority opinion by Chief Justice John
Marshall, issued 24 February 1803. Supreme Court History.
The First Hundred Years. Web.<

6. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/sources_doc
ument10.html> (Links to an external site.)Links to an external
site.
Supreme Court History. The Court and Democracy. Landmark
Cases. Marbury vs. Madison (1803). Web.
<http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/democracy/landmark_
marbury.html>
Thompson Rueters. Annotation 6-Article III.Power to Issue
Writs: The Act of 1789. 2015. Web.
<http://constitution.findlaw.com/article3/annotation06.html>
U.S. Constitution. In: Dye. Thomas R. and Harmon Zeigler.
The Irony of Democracy: An Uncommon Introduction to
American Politics. Boston. 2009. Print.