Marbury v. Madison: How History Has Changed John Marshall's Interpretation of the Constitution -- A Response to Winfield H. Rose Scholarship on Asian Pacific Americans

A reply to Winfield H. Rose's "Marbury v, Madison: How John Marshall Changed History by Misquoting the Constitution" (2003) contends that his reanalysis fails for remaining too tied to the same textbook wisdom on the case & judicial review that he advocates transcending. Agreement is registered with Jeffery Anderson's (2004) rebuttal to Rose's article, & further serious problems are identified. The political motives that Rose attributes to Marshall's intentional misquoting are perhaps overstated & result in a problem in his thesis centered on the (un)likelihood of Marshall's opponents missing or acquiescing to the misquote for exactly the existence of such a elevated political milieu. The alleged misquote of Article III is revisited, & Rose is called to task for problems with operant definitions. Attention turns to why there is such a tendency to consider Marbury the progenitor of modern judicial review, looking to remove Marshall's expression of it from the mythology in which it is embedded; ie, the wholly political basis for the decision. The prevailing notion that Marbury is essentially a coup d'etat is rejected for its misunderstanding of the historical record. 23 References. J. Zendejas