馬伯里訴麥迪遜案PPT英語演講用

Marburyv.MadisonThecaseofInscriptiononthewalloftheSupremeCourt(美國最高法院)Building

fromMarburyv.Madison,inwhichChiefJusticeJohnMarshalloutlinedtheconceptofjudicialreview.Itisemphaticallytheprovinceanddutyofthejudicialdepartmenttosaywhatthelawis解釋法律顯然是司法部門的權(quán)限范圍和責任TheBriefIntroductionThecaseresultedfromapetitiontotheSupremeCourtbyWilliamMarbury,whohadbeenappointedbyPresidentJohnAdamsasJusticeofthePeaceintheDistrictofColumbiabutwhosecommissionwasnotsubsequentlydelivered.MarburypetitionedtheSupremeCourttoforcethenewSecretaryofStateJamesMadisontodeliverthedocuments.莊園主馬伯里由于上屆政府的疏忽，而未收到“太平紳士”的委任狀，而繼任政府的國務(wù)卿麥迪遜拒絕將委任狀下發(fā)，于是馬伯里直接向當時并無實權(quán)的最高法院提起訴訟，要求得到自己的委任狀。ThepersonsinthecaseJohnAdams(1735-1826)ThesecondpresidentoftheUnitedStatesWilliamV.Marbury(1762-1835)asuccessfulbusinessmanJamesMadison(1751-1836)SecretaryofStateoftheUnitedStates國務(wù)卿JohnMarshall(1755-1835)ThefourthChiefJustice(首席大法官)oftheUnitedStatesDemocratic-republicanparty（民主共和黨）Federalistparty(聯(lián)邦黨)Defendant(被告)Plaintiff(原告)Thepresidingjudge(主審法官)ThomasJefferson(1743-1826)ThethirdpresidentoftheU.STheBackgroundOnMarch3,justbeforehistermwastoend,Adams,inanattempttostymie(阻撓)theincomingDemocratic-RepublicanCongressandadministration,appointed16Federalistcircuitjudgesand42FederalistjusticesofthepeacetoofficescreatedbytheJudiciaryActof1801.Theseappointees,theinfamous“MidnightJudges(午夜法官)”,includedWilliamMarbury.Hehadbeenappointedtothepositionofjusticeofthepeace(太平紳士)intheDistrictofColumbia.TheProgressWhileamajorityofthecommissionsweredelivered,itprovedimpossibleforallofthemtobedeliveredbeforeAdams'stermaspresidentexpired.OnMarch4,1801,ThomasJeffersonwassworninasPresident.Assoonashewasable,heorderedJamesMadison,SecretaryoftheUnitedStates,nottodelivertheremainingappointments.Withoutthecommissions,theappointeeswereunabletoassumetheofficesanddutiestowhichtheyhadbeenappointed.So,theundeliveredcommissionswerevoid(無效的).TheissueDoesArticleIIIoftheConstitutioncreatea"floor"fororiginaljurisdiction,whichCongresscanaddto,ordoesitcreateanexhaustivelistthatCongresscan'tmodifyatall?申訴人是否有權(quán)取得他所要求的委任狀？IfArticleIII'soriginaljurisdictionisanexhaustivelist,butCongresstriestomodifyitanyway,whowinsthatconflict,CongressortheConstitution?如果他有權(quán)，而這種權(quán)利已受到侵犯，他的國家的法律是否向他提供補救辦法？And,moreimportantly,whoissupposedtodecidewhowins?

如果法律確實向他提供補救辦法，是否即為本院發(fā)出的執(zhí)行令？TheResults"Indenyinghisrequest,theCourtheldthatitlackedjurisdictionbecauseSection13oftheJudiciaryActpassedbyCongressin1789,whichauthorizedtheCourttoissuesuchawrit,wasunconstitutionalandthusinvalid.“馬伯里在最高法院起訴是參考了如上所述的1789年《司法法》第13條，于是馬歇爾斬釘截鐵地指出，《司法法》這一條與憲法沖突，非法擴大了最高法院的權(quán)限。MarburyneverbecameaJusticeofthePeaceintheDistrictofColumbia.

Throughoutitshistory,theSupremeCourt’suniquerolehasbeentostatethelawandtodefinethepowersofthegovernment.JohnMarshall‘sopinioninMarburyv.MadisonsetthreeprinciplesthatformedthebasisofAmericanconstitutionallaw.

在最高法院歷史上，它的獨特職能始終是表述法律和界定政府的權(quán)力。首席大法官約翰?馬歇爾（JohnMarshall）為馬伯里訴麥迪遜案（Marburyv.Madison）所寫的意見書提出了構(gòu)成美國憲法基礎(chǔ)的三項原則。

TheSummaryThreePrinciplesFirst,theConstitutionstoodaboveordinarylaws,includingthosepassedbyCongressandsignedbythePresident.Second,theSupremeCourtwoulddefinetheConstitutionandsay“whatthelawis.”Third,thecourtwouldinvalidatelawsthatithaddecidedwereinconflictwiththeConstitution.第一，憲法本身高于普通法律，包括國會通過并經(jīng)過總統(tǒng)簽署的法律。第二，最高法院負責解釋憲法，闡明法律原意。第三，最高法院有權(quán)將它認為不符合憲法的法律裁定為無效。

TheInfluenceThereis“Madisoniandilemma”inpracticeofAmericanConstitutionalinterpretation,thatis,thefreedomofthemajoritytogovernandtherightsoftheminorityremainforeverintension.Asanessentialtrialofjudicialreviewdoctrine,Marbury