Marbury vs. Madison: uma revisão da decisão chave para o controle jurisdicional de constitucionalidade

Abstract

When Chief Justice John Marshall presided over the trial for the Marbury v. Madison case in 1803, he undoubtedly intended to make significant strides in the redefining of relations between authorities, although it is unlikely that he could have conceived of the extent of the consequences of his decision. A little over 210 years later, his words remain as alive as ever, present in all and any debate on constitutional jurisdiction. And what is even more remarkable is the weight of meaning that has been added to the precedent over time, moving far beyond the spectrum of debate surrounding its origin. This study reconstructs the chain of precedents that led to the Marbury v. Madison trial and the ramifications in the following years. It thus seeks to revise certain beliefs built around the decision, repeatedly invoked not just as a basis for legitimizing the judicial review, but more specifically as a justification for activist attitudes in the US Supreme Court.