马伯里诉麦迪逊案PPT英语演讲用

Marburyv.MadisonThecaseofInscriptiononthewalloftheSupremeCourt(美国最高法院)Building

fromMarburyv.Madison,inwhichChiefJusticeJohnMarshalloutlinedtheconceptofjudicialreview.Itisemphaticallytheprovinceanddutyofthejudicialdepartmenttosaywhatthelawis解释法律显然是司法部门的权限范围和责任TheBriefIntroductionThecaseresultedfromapetitiontotheSupremeCourtbyWilliamMarbury,whohadbeenappointedbyPresidentJohnAdamsasJusticeofthePeaceintheDistrictofColumbiabutwhosecommissionwasnotsubsequentlydelivered.MarburypetitionedtheSupremeCourttoforcethenewSecretaryofStateJamesMadisontodeliverthedocuments.庄园主马伯里由于上届政府的疏忽，而未收到“太平绅士”的委任状，而继任政府的国务卿麦迪逊拒绝将委任状下发，于是马伯里直接向当时并无实权的最高法院提起诉讼，要求得到自己的委任状。ThepersonsinthecaseJohnAdams(1735-1826)ThesecondpresidentoftheUnitedStatesWilliamV.Marbury(1762-1835)asuccessfulbusinessmanJamesMadison(1751-1836)SecretaryofStateoftheUnitedStates国务卿JohnMarshall(1755-1835)ThefourthChiefJustice(首席大法官)oftheUnitedStatesDemocratic-republicanparty（民主共和党）Federalistparty(联邦党)Defendant(被告)Plaintiff(原告)Thepresidingjudge(主审法官)ThomasJefferson(1743-1826)ThethirdpresidentoftheU.STheBackgroundOnMarch3,justbeforehistermwastoend,Adams,inanattempttostymie(阻挠)theincomingDemocratic-RepublicanCongressandadministration,appointed16Federalistcircuitjudgesand42FederalistjusticesofthepeacetoofficescreatedbytheJudiciaryActof1801.Theseappointees,theinfamous“MidnightJudges(午夜法官)”,includedWilliamMarbury.Hehadbeenappointedtothepositionofjusticeofthepeace(太平绅士)intheDistrictofColumbia.TheProgressWhileamajorityofthecommissionsweredelivered,itprovedimpossibleforallofthemtobedeliveredbeforeAdams'stermaspresidentexpired.OnMarch4,1801,ThomasJeffersonwassworninasPresident.Assoonashewasable,heorderedJamesMadison,SecretaryoftheUnitedStates,nottodelivertheremainingappointments.Withoutthecommissions,theappointeeswereunabletoassumetheofficesanddutiestowhichtheyhadbeenappointed.So,theundeliveredcommissionswerevoid(无效的).TheissueDoesArticleIIIoftheConstitutioncreatea"floor"fororiginaljurisdiction,whichCongresscanaddto,ordoesitcreateanexhaustivelistthatCongresscan'tmodifyatall?申诉人是否有权取得他所要求的委任状？IfArticleIII'soriginaljurisdictionisanexhaustivelist,butCongresstriestomodifyitanyway,whowinsthatconflict,CongressortheConstitution?如果他有权，而这种权利已受到侵犯，他的国家的法律是否向他提供补救办法？And,moreimportantly,whoissupposedtodecidewhowins?

如果法律确实向他提供补救办法，是否即为本院发出的执行令？TheResults"Indenyinghisrequest,theCourtheldthatitlackedjurisdictionbecauseSection13oftheJudiciaryActpassedbyCongressin1789,whichauthorizedtheCourttoissuesuchawrit,wasunconstitutionalandthusinvalid.“马伯里在最高法院起诉是参考了如上所述的1789年《司法法》第13条，于是马歇尔斩钉截铁地指出，《司法法》这一条与宪法冲突，非法扩大了最高法院的权限。MarburyneverbecameaJusticeofthePeaceintheDistrictofColumbia.

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

在最高法院历史上，它的独特职能始终是表述法律和界定政府的权力。首席大法官约翰•马歇尔（JohnMarshall）为马伯里诉麦迪逊案（Marburyv.Madison）所写的意见书提出了构成美国宪法基础的三项原则。

TheSummaryThreePrinciplesFirst,theConstitutionstoodaboveordinarylaws,includingthosepassedbyCongressandsignedbythePresident.Second,theSupremeCourtwoulddefinetheConstitutionandsay“whatthelawis.”Third,thecourtwouldinvalidatelawsthatithaddecidedwereinconflictwiththeConstitution.第一，宪法本身高于普通法律，包括国会通过并经过总统签署的法律。第二，最高法院负责解释宪法，阐明法律原意。第三，最高法院有权将它认为不符合宪法的法律裁定为无效。

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