What is your oppinion of John Marshall, specifically of his decision in Marbury v. Madison? I think he lied in this decision. He misquoted the Constitution, and I think he did this so he could make judicial review a power of the judicial branch.

The fact is clear that he misquoted the Constitution, but what I want to know is whether he did this on purpose or as an accident. I think he did it on purpose.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

What part of the Constitution did John Marshall misquote, and in what way? Where in the opinion of the Court can we find this misquote? It is much easier to discuss your issue if you can inform us of this.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

In his decision, Marshall refused to issue a writ of mandamus ordering Madison to deliver to Marbury his commission. The reason he gave is that the part of the Judicary Act of 1789 that gave the court authority to issue writs of mandumus is unconstitutional. His argument was that the Constitution gave the Supreme Court specific duties, and Congress cannot add to these powers. According to his (mis)quotation of the Constitution, he is correct. He said that the Constitution says:
"The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction, in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and counsuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appelate jurisdiction."
According to this, it would be unconstitutional for the Congress to add powers to the Supreme COurt. However, the Constitution really says:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

You see, according to the Constitution, Congress CAN change the jurisdiciton that the Supreme Court has. And, in the JUdicary Act of 1789, Congress did just that. Before the act, SCOTUS did not have original jurisdiction in issuing writs of mandamus. Congress, however, made an "exception" and changed SCOTUS' jurisdiction.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

However, the word "exception" often means that you can withdraw something, not that you can add something. This is how I would read that part of the Constitution. Maybe it is also the way John Marshall read it.

I believe, as you do, that John Marshall wanted to make sure judicial review was a part of the judicial branch. I do not believe, however, that he deliberately misinterpreted the Constitution in order to do so.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

Yes, Exception means that you can withdraw something. If SCOTUS does not have appealate jurisdiciton, it must have original jurisdiction.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address