Amazon.com: The Activist: John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, and the Myth of Judicial Review: Lawrence Goldstone: Books

From Publishers Weekly
The author's voice is never far from the surface in this sprightly study of the circumstances surrounding the Supreme Court's epochal 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison that declared an act of Congress unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Marshall's reasoning was laughable, Goldstone says in characteristically unbuttoned language. Yet popular historian Goldstone (Dark Bargain), who has a Ph.D. in American constitutional studies, also has to acknowledge Marshall's statesmanship and political brilliance in his Marbury decision, a maneuver against the new Democratic-Republican president Jefferson by the Federalist Marshall. The result is a readable, if opinionated, tour of the origins of judicial review. It's hard to make sense of the term myth in the book's subtitle, given that judicial review has become the basis of American constitutional law. Still, the book is a valuable review of a complex subject. It also has relevance for today, when, as Goldstone claims, originalist judges, in the name of adhering strictly to the words of the Constitution, use judicial review, which is not in the Constitution, to inconsistently strike down laws. 20 b&w illus. (Oct.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Product Description

The story of the landmark case that put the “Supreme” in Supreme Court.

Among the many momentous decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, none has had a greater impact than that passed down in 1803 by Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Marbury v. Madison. While the ruling itself was innocuous—denying the plea of a minor functionary named William Marbury on constitutionally technical grounds—its implications were enormous. For Marshall had, in essence, claimed for the Supreme Court the right to determine what the Constitution and our laws under it really mean, known formally as the principle of “judicial review.” Yet, as Lawrence Goldstone shows in his compelling narrative, that right is nowhere expressed in the Constitution and was not even considered by the Framers or the Founding Fathers, who would never have granted such power in a checks-and-balances system to unelected officials serving for life.

The Activist underscores the drama that occurred in 1803 by examining the debates that took place during the Constitutional Convention of 1787—among the most dramatic moments in American history—over the formation and structure of our judicial system. In parallel, Goldstone introduces in brief the life and ambition of John Marshall, and the early, fragile years of the Supreme Court, which—until Marshall’s ascension to Chief Justice—sat atop the weakest of the three branches of government. Marshall made the Court supreme, and while judicial review has been used sparingly, without it the Court would likely never have intervened in the 2000 presidential election. Indeed, the great irony Goldstone reveals is that judicial review is now so enfranchised that Justice Antonin Scalia could admit, as he has, that the Supreme Court “made it up” in the same breath as he insists that justices must adhere steadfastly to the exact words of the Constitution.

Nobody brings the debates of the Constitutional Convention to life as does Lawrence Goldstone, and in this election year, no more interesting book on the Supreme Court will appear than The Activist, which makes the past come alive in the present.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

Hardcover: 304 pages
Publisher: Walker & Company; 1 edition (September 2, 2008)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0802714889
ISBN-13: 978-0802714886
Product Dimensions: 9.4 x 6.1 x 1.2 inches
Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)

Average Customer Review: 3.2 out of 5 stars See all reviews (5 customer reviews)

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #412,573 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)
Popular in this category: (What's this?)
#11 in Books > Nonfiction > Social Sciences > Political Science > Constitutional History

Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?

What Do Customers Ultimately Buy After Viewing This Item?

	76% buy the item featured on this page: The Activist: John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, and the Myth of Judicial Review $17.16
	9% buy The Great Decision: Jefferson, Adams, Marshall, and the Battle for the Supreme Court 3.6 out of 5 stars (8) $17.79
	6% buy John Marshall: Definer of a Nation 4.9 out of 5 stars (31) $16.50
	5% buy The Invisible Constitution (Inalienable Rights) 3.1 out of 5 stars (10) $13.57

Explore similar items

Tags Customers Associate with This Product

(What's this?)

Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.

constitutional history(2)

founding fathers(2)

historical dimensions and perspectives(2)

interpretation(2)

james madison(2)

john adams(2)

nonfiction(2)

thomas jefferson(2)

john marshall(1)

legal history(1)

See all 11 tags...

Help others find this product — tag it for Amazon search

No one has tagged this product for Amazon search yet. Why not be the first to suggest a search for which it should appear?

Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store

If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store. Learn more

Customer Reviews

5 Reviews

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

Average Customer Review

3.2 out of 5 stars (5 customer reviews)

Share your thoughts with other customers:

Create your own review

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars The journey of judicial review, December 16, 2008

By	Bookreporter.com (New York, New York) - See all my reviews

Once you're traveling in Constitutional legal circles, "activist" is an epithet --- meaning, basically, that the other person with whom you do not share a political party is using the Constitution for political purposes. A horrible thing, to be sure. Most of the time (but not always, there are exceptions) the opposite epithet is "originalist," which means that the other person wants to interpret the Constitution based on the received wisdom of the Founding Fathers, looking down on us, as from a judicial Olympus with haughty and austere visages, proclaiming the Only Right Approach to Constitutional issues, in voices dry as dust and tinged with the irritation of the centuries.

One suspects, however, that if the Founders were confronted with the issues the Supreme Court is now facing --- particularly the recent Establishment Clause case involving an obscure Utah cult dedicated, among other things, to the practice of mummifying pets --- that the exalted personages would find themselves laughing like drains at the absurdity of it all.

Lawrence Goldstone's avowed purpose is to illustrate that one of the Founding Fathers --- John Marshall, the first great and consequential Chief Justice --- belongs in the "activist" category, and the question of whether he accomplishes this purpose will be left to the intelligent and discerning reader. What he actually manages to do, however (at least in the area of judicial review), is shatter originalism into a thousand broken pieces, scattered across the marble corridors of jurisprudence like the debris of a gallant but doomed civilization overrun by bandits.

The book traces judicial review --- the idea that an unelected judiciary should have the authority to invalidate legislative or executive actions that conflict with the Constitution --- through the Articles of Confederation all the way down to the thump of Marbury v. Madison landing on John Marshall's desk. And what Goldstone finds in all this mass of historical evidence is the loud, clear, unequivocal voice of the Founding Fathers, stating in unison, "Well, I don't know, what do you think?"

Of course, they said no such thing --- although it would have been much more helpful if they had, because (as Goldstone proves, and a comprehensive job he does of it) there really isn't all that much in the record, and what there is displays a good bit of division on the issue, when there is not a complete lack of effort to come to grips with the question. Goldstone follows the tracks of judicial review through the lost history of the ratifying conventions and the Federalist-Antifederalist debate, and comes up with a startling lack of consensus on how the Supreme Court should apply the Constitution to the law in case of a conflict.

The issue wouldn't come up for quite some time --- not until the famous case of Marbury v. Madison --- allowing Goldstone to map out the early years of the Supreme Court, notable primarily for the Justice's gripes about "circuit riding," traveling across the then-remote American wilderness to hold court outside Washington. He does a phenomenal job of making the murky facts of Marbury, and their even murkier political context, clear and understandable. If Goldstone can't do quite the same thing for Justice Marshall's opinion in Marbury, there's a reason for that. He calls Marbury a "masterpiece of misdirection," and his clear prose does little to illuminate the thickets of Marshall's. (The Marbury opinion is included as an appendix for the adventurous.)

THE ACTIVIST proves its central point convincingly; Marbury was an activist decision, perhaps bordering on the partisan. But it does something else entirely, and greater; by parsing out the history of the idea of judicial review, it demolishes the myth that today's Constitutional issues can best be resolved by consulting the founding documents. There is, after all, no guarantee that they would agree with us on the issues, any more than they agreed with each other.

--- Reviewed by Curtis Edmonds

Comment Comment (1) | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? Yes No (Report this)

1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent analysis of how Marshall seized power for Supreme Court, November 18, 2008

By	Thomas W. Sulcer (Summit, NJ USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Lawrence Goldstone's The Activist is a surprisingly readable analysis of the Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice John Marshall, with particular focus on the Marbury v. Madison 1803 decision, and the background leading up to it.

When Federalists were ousted from power by Republican electoral victories, their only remaining redoubt was the Supreme Court, but it had little power. Marshall, however, misused a procedural error regarding a lawsuit by an office seeker named Marbury as an excuse to seize power for the Supreme Court that the Constitution had never intended it to have, namely, the power of judicial review. With this power, the Supreme Court could "strike down" acts by the legislature if it deemed them contrary to the Constitution. What a huge power. In a way, John Marshall rewrote the Constitution. Goldstone's book appears well-researched (sorry, I'm not a scholar or fact checker or academic). It's well written and delightful to read, and Goldstone maintains a tone of respectful non-partisan fairness. And he argues, convincingly, that Marshall's Marbury decision has affected the lives of every American today.

Note: Perhaps Marbury v. Madison was a key turning point in an inexorable ascent of political power from the local to the federal level, but clearly it wasn't the only cause. Rather, in retrospect, it was a noticeably loud crack in the foundation of the New Republic, in my view. By combining Tocqueville's later analysis of democratic America with a logical cause and effect, it's possible to explain the sad state of American politics today, with attack ads, money ruling Washington, bloated bureaucracy, waffling foreign policy. I think the political process today is broken to the point where the only remedy is a Second Constitutional Convention (I'm summoning delegates to meet in Philadelphia in July 2009), and that a mere change of parties, executives, amendments, or a shift from right to left are insufficient to fix serious structural problems. Washington is like a crashed computer unresponsive to keystrokes. Readers may be interested in my critique -- Common Sense II: How to Prevent the Three Types of Terrorism on Amazon (available on Amazon & Kindle). Mr. Goldstone is one of the few people smart enough to help rewrite the Constitution, so I'll be sending him an invitation to the Constitutional Convention soon, and I hope he attends.

Back to Goldstone's book: it's excellent for Constitutional scholars, history students, lawyers, and people interested in the Supreme Court. That it's so artfully written makes it a delight. Highly recommended.

Comment Comments (6) | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? Yes No (Report this)

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Engaging history, jarring "topicality" , February 27, 2009

By	Charley Foster "Charley Foster" (Kauai) - See all my reviews

I enjoyed The Activist for its history. But the author's swipes at originalist jurisprudence, tacked onto the beginning and ending of the book, seemed an afterthought - as though someone had advised him that his book might sell better if he did something to make it "topical." Worse, it was jarringly inaccurate. In his concluding remarks, Goldstone asserts that, "If one...subscribes to Justice Scalia's philosophy, it is difficult to see how a continuing defense of the right of judicial review can be maintained." You would think that someone who had scrupulously researched the history of Marbury v. Madison could have found his way to p. 138 of Scalia's A Matter of Interpretation, where the justice addresses that very point -

"Originalism, like any other theory of interpretation put into practice in an ongoing system of law, must accommodate the doctrine of stare decisis; it cannot remake the world anew. It is of no more consequence at this point whether the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were in accord with the original understanding of the First Amendment than it is whether Marbury v. Madison was decided correctly. Where originalism will make a difference is not in the rolling back of accepted old principles of constitutional law but in the rejection of usurpatious new ones....

"[Stare Decisis] is a compromise of all philosophies of interpretation....The demand that originalists alone "be true to their lights" and forswear stare decisis is essentially a demand that they alone render their methodology so disruptive of the established state of things that it will be useful only as an academic exercise and not as a workable prescription for judicial governance."

Comment Comment | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? Yes No (Report this)

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review

› See all 5 customer reviews...

Most Recent Customer Reviews

3.0 out of 5 stars A worthwhile, but incomplete, effort
I don't have a problem with the idea of judicial review, but I figured this book was worth a shot. I enjoyed a lot of the author's analysis as he tries to illustrate the idea... Read more

Published 5 months ago by Liberty and Union

1.0 out of 5 stars Misconception about a Myth
The title certainly demands attention, but mine was quickly dampened when I delved inside. On the first page, the author quotes Justice Scalia on what it means to be of the school... Read more

Published 7 months ago by John Paul Jones (jjones@richmo...

› See all 5 customer reviews...

Customer Discussions

Beta (What's this?)

New! See all customer communities, and bookmark your communities to keep track of them.

This product's forum (0 discussions)

	Discussion	Replies	Latest Post
	No discussions yet

Ask questions, Share opinions, Gain insight

Start a new discussion

Topic:

First post:

Receive e-mail when new posts are made

Prompts for sign-in

[Cancel]

Guidelines

Active discussions in related forums

Discussion	Replies	Latest Post
history Why does Holocaust Denial Exist?	5391	52 minutes ago
history What was the Worst Military Defeat in History?	206	1 hour ago
history What if Israel ceased to be. . . ?	85	2 hours ago
history History of the Palestinian Nation?	809	2 hours ago
history Did we eat the Neanderthals?	189	3 hours ago
history What was the Romans greatest contribution to posterity?	111	3 hours ago
history Roman vs. Greek "Empires"	16	6 hours ago