YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → El caso Marbury vs. Madison en español (excelente recreación)

El caso Marbury vs. Madison en español (excelente recreación) — Transcript

by LP - Pasión por el Derecho · 4,104 words · 803 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:14um uh
0:49um
1:03hey
1:14the foundation on which rests the
1:16government of the united states
1:18is the constitution
1:21like most important political documents
1:23the constitution is subject to
1:25interpretation
1:26that is one of its great strengths
1:28the constitution is not a legal
1:30straitjacket it is firm and yet flexible
1:34enough to meet the needs of an
1:35ever-growing ever-changing nation
1:38naturally the question arises who is to
1:40say what the constitution means
1:44who is to say for example whether a law
1:46enacted by congress is constitutional or
1:49whether it is not
1:51congress
1:53the president
1:55the judiciary
1:58the question arose
2:00during the very infancy of the republic
2:02it brought face to face two eminent
2:04statesmen who have profoundly affected
2:06america as we know it today president
2:09thomas jefferson and chief justice john
2:12marshall
2:13what jefferson said was this
2:15the voice of the people is supreme
2:17let the people decide through their
2:19elected representatives what the
2:21constitution means and what it means not
2:25what john marshall said on the other
2:27hand was this
2:28the constitution itself intends for the
2:30federal judiciary to make that decision
2:33men who are appointed to the bench for
2:35life and would therefore stand above
2:37party strife and political turmoil
2:42the difference of opinion of the two men
2:43on this crucial issue was resolved
2:45within the framework of a case known as
2:48marbury versus madison a case which was
2:51heard before the supreme court in 1803
2:54and which led to one of the most
2:56important decisions ever made by that
2:58court
3:01sometime during the fall of 1801
3:05four men decided to pay a visit to the
3:07united states department of state
3:09the four men's names were marbury
3:12ramsey harper
3:14and whole
3:15president adams during the very last
3:18days of his administration had nominated
3:20them as justices of the peace for the
3:22district of columbia
3:24the senate had confirmed them
3:26president adams had signed their
3:28commissions
3:29and the then secretary of state john
3:31marshall had affixed to the commission's
3:34the seal of the united states
3:36however in the great flurry of
3:38activities during john adams exit from
3:40the political stage
3:42these commissions had disappeared
3:44jefferson's republicans were in power
3:46now thomas jefferson was president and
3:50james madison secretary of state
3:52and the commissions of marbury ramsey
3:55harper and whole had still not turned up
4:01i'm mr marbury william marbury this mr
4:04ramsey mr harper mr ho
4:06we're here to see the secretary of state
4:07on what business we'd prefer to put that
4:10directly to mr madison
4:12mr madison has given instructions
4:15very strict instructions sir
4:18that he be informed of his visitors
4:20business before they are admitted
4:23very well then
4:24we're here to inquire into the
4:25whereabouts of four commissions
4:27commissions for these gentlemen and
4:28myself as justices of the peace of the
4:30district of columbia
4:32whereabouts
4:33that's right the whereabouts
4:35we know that they were signed by the
4:36president and sealed but they were never
4:38delivered to us
4:42if you'll wait a moment gentlemen
4:51you'll see us
4:52he won't
4:54if he doesn't i'll make him jump
4:57you mark my words make him jump there's
5:00little chance of that
5:01you keep forgetting marbury we lost the
5:03election
5:04mr jefferson is in charge now and he'll
5:07play the tune and we federalists will do
5:09the jumping we lost those commissions
5:12when we lost the election and that is
5:14that
5:14well i don't think that is that
5:18we have a legal right to those
5:20commission
5:21doesn't matter which party owns that
5:23desk
5:27marbury let's go home
5:28not until he sees them
5:34gentlemen i'm mr wagner the chief clerk
5:38the secretary has urgent business and
5:40cannot see you he has directed me to
5:42talk to you i'm at your service
5:44gentlemen mr wagner this matter concerns
5:46the secretary himself
5:48he cannot be disturbed
5:50i'm sorry
5:52if you will be so kind as to state your
5:54business
5:56mr wagner
5:58the four of us were nominated by
6:00president adams as justices of the peace
6:02for the district of columbia
6:04former president adams
6:06the nominations were confirmed by the
6:08senate they were signed by the president
6:10but they were never delivered to him
6:13i know nothing about that
6:15nor i'm sure there's anyone else here
6:17least of all mr madison
6:19you're aware of course that he didn't
6:20take office until may i know that
6:23however mr wagner the commissions were
6:25last seen on a table in the state
6:27department now mr madison is in charge
6:30of that department and we intend to hold
6:31him responsible
6:33i doubt that he'll accept that
6:34responsibility
6:37just so we don't misunderstand each
6:38other mr wagner
6:40the withholding of an official document
6:42of the united states a commission of
6:43office is a crime for which a man is
6:46punishable under the law
6:47even if that man is the secretary of
6:49state
6:50you're not considering are you taking
6:52the secretary of state to court
6:55yes we are mr
6:56as a matter of fact we will take him to
6:58court if that's what it takes to force
7:00this department to produce our
7:02commission
7:04you don't think any man is above the law
7:06do you the secretary of state the
7:08president himself
7:10now mr wagner are you going to tell us
7:12about our commissions or not
7:16i know nothing about them sir
7:18nothing at all
7:25marbury and his companions would file a
7:28petition in the supreme court what they
7:30demanded specifically was that the
7:32secretary of state james madison be
7:35forced by an order from that court
7:38to hand over to them the commissions to
7:40which they felt themselves entitled
7:43the power to issue such an order they
7:45knew had been given to the supreme court
7:48by the judiciary act of 1789
7:52the court then consisted of six men
7:55chief justice john marshall justice
7:58alfred moore
8:00justice william patterson
8:02justice william cushing
8:05justice bushrod washington
8:07and justice samuel chase
8:09all appointed by either george
8:11washington
8:12or john adams
8:16let us assume the men have a case
8:19question
8:20is there a statute which would empower
8:23this court to hear it
8:25there is
8:27section 13 of the judiciary act of 1789
8:31the language mr patterson
8:33section 13 mr chief justice
8:36authorizes us to issue court orders
8:40in cases warranted by the principles and
8:42usages of the law to any persons holding
8:44office
8:45under the authority of the united states
8:48then we can issue an order to the
8:50secretary of state
8:52directing him to produce these
8:54commissions
8:55if the case warranted
8:57i see
9:03i feel constrained to point out that
9:05this case
9:06should we decide to hear it
9:08and should we have reason to find for
9:10marbury that this case will set us on a
9:12collision course with president
9:14jefferson
9:15now that he and his republicans are in
9:17power
9:18good
9:19good
9:21it's only a matter of time until they
9:24lay an axe to this court
9:27the last remnant of their federalist
9:29opposition
9:32now we have a chance to head them off
9:35only to be accused of acting from
9:37political motives
9:39no mr chase
9:41we would be furnishing mr jefferson with
9:43ammunition
9:44irrelevant whether we furnish him or not
9:48he carries enough political cant in his
9:50head with which to load his cannon until
9:52the day of doom
9:55we can't furnish him with ammunition
10:00mr
10:02marshall yes
10:06well
10:11assuredly this court has no business
10:12meddling with the executive
10:15or with his cabinet members
10:18on the other hand
10:20if mr marbury is entitled to his
10:21commission
10:23and if it's being wrongfully withheld
10:24from him
10:26it appears
10:28this court has certain responsibilities
10:32which i for one am
10:34willing to live up to
10:45thank heavens mr giles there are some
10:48matters that brook no opinion
10:51there's only one way to bake a tart of
10:53homage this is it
10:55i thank god mr president
10:57[Music]
10:59no need to make light of it mr
11:01congressman
11:02it's heaven
11:03listen
11:07mr madison mr president
11:13what is that paper you have in your hand
11:16mr madison it's an order from the
11:18supreme court
11:19what order
11:21i've been asked to show cause why should
11:23not be directed by the supreme court to
11:25produce certain commissions
11:28as justice of the peace
11:30in the district of columbia the names of
11:32marbury harper brampton ignore it ignore
11:35the order
11:37nothing further
11:39nothing
11:42my friend the chief justice
11:45what could have been more plain in the
11:47world than that he was just waiting for
11:48this opportunity
11:50to strike at you
11:52yes mr president
11:54to strike at the executive authority of
11:57this government
11:59it's plain as day that he intends to
12:01furnish the opposition an opportunity to
12:03abuse you
12:05to vilify you
12:07it's not enough to ignore him to do
12:09nothing
12:11you have been attacked mr president
12:14strike back
12:17these commissions mr president
12:19do you know anything about them
12:25i do yes
12:28i found them on the table of the state
12:29department when i took office i forbade
12:31their delivery
12:33you hadn't arrived yet
12:35ah
12:36you find this irregular
12:39consider
12:4142 commissions that man adams crowded
12:44into the last hour of his administration
12:4542
12:48and all of them picked from among my
12:49worst enemies
12:51and with the simple motive of preventing
12:53me from staffing my administration with
12:55my own people what else was i to do
12:59except for the life appointments which
13:01are irrevocable i've treated them as a
13:03novelty expedient but not all together
13:05legal what else could i do for so many
13:08years has this republic been under
13:09federalist rule
13:11for so many years if we labored to drive
13:13them from the government
13:15and now that we've done it we have
13:16routed them from the legislature routed
13:18them from the executive
13:20they hang on thanks to mr adams they
13:23hang on to the judiciary like fleas to
13:25an old blanket
13:27and the worst of it is we must feed and
13:30care for them while they try to strike
13:32down safe in their own fortress
13:36to strike down and ruin all the works of
13:39republicanism
13:40they must be
13:41move
13:43counter move mr president
13:46repeal the circuit court act
13:48repeal the entire judicial system
13:51at one blow we shall terminate all
13:53present office holders create a new
13:55system entirely and cut back the power
13:58of the courts to its proper limits
14:01the people govern
14:03not the courts
14:05well that's madness mr giles the
14:07judiciary system is perfectly adequate
14:10it will suffice to replace its present
14:13occupants
14:16is it madness mr president
14:19yes mr giles it is
14:22but in my present frame of mind it's
14:24also a very tempting idea
14:26not practicable but it is
14:29now tempting court act
14:32yes i wish to see it repealed
14:35as to replacing the present occupants of
14:37the judiciary
14:40i think you're quite right mr madison
14:42yes let's keep our eyes open for any
14:45opportunities to impeach
14:49two or three of these gentlemen i think
14:52that might have
14:55quite a good impression that is not
14:58enough
15:01well i shall not try to
15:03destroy the federal judiciary mr giles
15:06although i wish to see its power curved
15:09the constitution prescribes that the
15:11three branches of the government balance
15:13each other none is to dominate the other
15:16if we permit the supreme court to
15:18concern itself with the business of the
15:19legislature and of the executive we
15:21shall have conceded to them the right to
15:23control this business
15:25and that is inconsistent with every idea
15:28of good government
15:33thomas jefferson viewed the supreme
15:35court's action in behalf of william
15:36marbury as an attack upon the executive
15:40he retaliated first by means of the
15:42congress
15:43under his direction congress repealed an
15:46important piece of federalist
15:47legislation
15:48the circuit court act of 1801
15:51congress then suspended the june and
15:53august terms of the supreme court
15:56next came impeachment proceedings
15:58against a federal judge by the name of
16:00pickering
16:01and finally there were rumors that
16:03supreme court justice samuel chase was
16:05marked for a similar fate
16:09the rights of the individuals are at
16:11stake
16:13yes
16:14of course
16:16but there's a great deal more to it
16:20the independence of this court is at
16:22stake
16:23the independence of this court is
16:25provided by the constitution
16:30it's no longer merely a legal question
16:33that concerns us here
16:36congress is seen thoroughly to that and
16:38i presume under mr jefferson's prompting
16:41if we take it up now
16:43we do political battle
16:46however the prospect of that may strike
16:48anyone else i find it extremely
16:51distasteful
16:54i find it hopeless
17:03we are in midst of a battle yes
17:06a battle which we cannot win
17:09if we find for mr marbury and order mr
17:12madison to produce this accursed
17:14commission what will happen
17:16nothing mr madison will simply ignore us
17:21as we have no way to enforce our
17:22decisions
17:23we shall have established ourselves as
17:25an irrelevancy
17:27if on the other hand
17:30we find against mr marbury
17:32it will be said that we have vindicated
17:34the president
17:36because we fear his anger
17:39ridiculous
17:40quite so
17:43no
17:46we're damned either way
17:52i've always thought
17:54that the greatest scourge in angry
17:56heaven could inflict on a sinning and
17:58ungrateful people would be an ignorant a
18:01corrupt
18:02or a dependent judiciary
18:06this court must give honorable proof of
18:08its independence
18:09or if we said we don't deserve it
18:11we're not and never should be in the
18:13business of making political warfare
18:17peace doesn't come from the absence of
18:19conflict mr washington but
18:22from the ability to cope with it
18:26if a wrong has been committed
18:28and if the constitution authorizes us to
18:30act on it
18:32does anyone claim that the secretary or
18:34even the president is above the law
18:38and if they have violated the law
18:39gentleman
18:40consider where can a man turn for the
18:43protection of his rights but to our
18:45courts of justice
18:49arguments in marbury versus madison were
18:51heard before the supreme court in
18:52february of 1803
18:55charles lee represented marbury and his
18:58companions
19:00the secretary of state gentlemen is not
19:02above the law
19:04where he acts as an agent of the
19:06president under the direct orders of the
19:08president he may not be responsible to
19:10the courts
19:12but he is also a public servant to the
19:15people of the united states
19:18as such he has duties which are assigned
19:20to him
19:22not by the president but by the law
19:25in the execution of these duties he is
19:29independent of all control
19:31except the control of the law
19:34the people can compel him to do these
19:37duties
19:38and if he refuses
19:40he must answer to the courts
19:43now
19:44we do not wish to punish mr madison for
19:47his refusal to surrender to mr marbury
19:50the commission to which unquestionably
19:52he is entitled
19:54we wish to protect mr marbury
19:59and to see that he gets what is due him
20:02this objective can be achieved by means
20:06of a court order
20:08to mr madison demanding that he fought
20:11with produced the commission which will
20:13install mr marbury in the office for
20:16which he was nominated by president
20:18adams and in which the senate confirmed
20:21him
20:22if a court order of this nato can be
20:25issued at all by this court
20:28it can be issued to the secretary of
20:29state
20:31the act of congress gives this court the
20:34power to award it
20:36in cases warranted by the principles and
20:39usages of the law
20:40to any persons holding office under the
20:44authority of the united states
20:50gentlemen
20:52i think the case warrants it
20:58on its face the case had nothing to do
21:00with the question as to whose
21:02interpretation of the constitution was
21:04the binding one
21:05yet chief justice marshall made it the
21:07springboard for a crucially significant
21:09pronouncement on just that matter
21:12he did so by questioning the
21:14constitutionality of the very act of
21:16congress which had empowered the court
21:18to hear the case in the first place
21:20section 13 of the judiciary act of 1789
21:27well can there be any doubt that marbury
21:29is entitled to his commission
21:32surely we can agree on that
21:35are we maintaining that for such a
21:37document to take effect
21:38that it suffices for it to be signed by
21:40the president and to be sealed
21:43that the act of delivery is irrelevant
21:45the commission is valid from the moment
21:47it is signed and sealed
21:50i think
21:54you remind me of a fellow i had in the
21:56witness box mr chase great many years
21:58ago
22:00kept answering my questions with
22:03i think
22:05so i said to him
22:06don't think
22:07tell us what you know
22:10he
22:10replied well
22:12i'm not a lawyer
22:16i can't talk without thinking
22:20now
22:21three questions need to be answered in
22:23this order
22:25number one
22:27has marbury a right to the commission
22:29which he is claiming
22:31number two
22:32if he has a right to said commission and
22:34that right has been violated
22:36do the laws of the land offering
22:38protection
22:40number three
22:41if the laws of the land offering
22:43protection what can we do for
22:46now can we direct madison to produce the
22:49commission do him can we of course we
22:52can
22:53we heard this case precisely because
22:55section 13 of the judiciary act gave us
22:58the power to act if necessary in such
23:01manner
23:04all right
23:05question one
23:06i think we have an agreement here
23:09his commission was signed it was sealed
23:11it is valid
23:13then we must have agreement on question
23:15two as well
23:16if the commission is valid if marbury
23:19has a legal right to the office of
23:20justice of the peace then refusal to
23:23deliver that commission is a plain
23:24violation of that right for which the
23:26law of the land offers him protection
23:29agreed gentlemen
23:32now for the crucial question
23:35can the situation be remedied by an
23:37order from this court
23:38directing mr madison to surrender the
23:40commission to mr marbury i thought that
23:43was agreed on from the beginning
23:45section 13 of the judiciary act empowers
23:47us to issue just such an order it'll be
23:49ignored
23:51yes
23:52but the law is clear
23:54is it really mr patterson
23:57is there any question of that
23:59might be
24:00of whether it is clear
24:03of whether it is clearly the law
24:06nothing clearer
24:08it was passed by congress signed for the
24:10president
24:11well i've studied this section 13
24:13closely
24:15i've also refreshed my
24:16memory incidentally my respect for that
24:19very excellent instrument our
24:20constitution
24:22and
24:24the constitution says that we have
24:26jurisdiction in cases such as this
24:28article 3 section 2
24:31but
24:33the case must come to us on appeal from
24:35a lower court gentlemen
24:38yeah
24:39look it up for yourself mr washington
24:49yes of course
24:52marbury versus madison did not come to
24:54us on appeal gentlemen
24:56it originated in this court
25:00perfect
25:01we have no jurisdiction
25:03the case is closed
25:07not quite oh
25:14section 13 of the judiciary act is in
25:17conflict with the constitution
25:19i propose we make the point how so
25:22by declaring it unconstitutional
25:26section 13 presumes to give us
25:28jurisdiction where the constitution
25:30plainly says we don't have it
25:32i disagree mr chief justice
25:35i disagree
25:37section 13 merely says that we can issue
25:39a court order quote in cases warranted
25:43by the principles and usages of the law
25:46it does not specify the nature of the
25:48case it does not say in cases which
25:51originate in this court nor does it say
25:53in cases which come to this court on
25:55appeal
25:57section 13 merely says in cases
26:00warranted by the principles and usages
26:02of the law
26:03so
26:04section 13 need not be construed as
26:06conflicting with the constitution
26:10all depends on how we interpret it
26:12mr patterson
26:14can section 13 be interpreted as giving
26:17us jurisdiction in a case like this
26:19that originates in this court
26:21yes of course
26:22then it is in conflict with the
26:25constitution but we don't have to
26:27interpret it that way but we can
26:30and i urge that we do so that we find
26:32section 13 unconstitutional and that we
26:35so declare it
26:38gentlemen
26:39i ask for your consent
26:41why is it not enough to say that we have
26:43no jurisdiction
26:45why go further
26:47why plainest day mr patterson
26:50it's perfectly extraordinary
26:55a declaration of independence mr
26:57patterson
26:59by declaring section 13 unconstitutional
27:03an act passed by congress and signed
27:06into law by the president
27:08this court will have staked its claim to
27:10the right to say to the legislative and
27:13to the executive
27:15what the constitution means
27:18and what it means not
27:20mr patterson
27:22we shall have stated emphatically
27:25that it is the province of the judiciary
27:28department
27:29to say what the law is
27:34what puzzles me mr marshall
27:36is when we decided to hear this case
27:39on the basis of this section 13 and when
27:41you first laid eyes on it
27:44did you decide then that it was
27:45unconstitutional
27:47did it occur to you then that we might
27:49use this case
27:52sometimes our best opportunities come
27:54wrapped in our worst problems mr
27:56washington
27:59it's always been my belief that the only
28:03way to safeguard the constitution was to
28:05put it in the hands of the judiciary
28:08not in the hands of the legislative
28:10not of the executive
28:13after all
28:15the constitution is either superior to
28:17the law
28:18unchangeable by ordinary means
28:21or it's on the level of ordinary
28:23legislative acts
28:25it can be changed whenever the
28:26legislative or the executive is pleased
28:28to change
28:30this be the case
28:33if say the legislature were in a
28:34position to change the constitution
28:36whenever it pleased
28:38whether the written constitution would
28:39be
28:41merely an absurd attempt to
28:43limit a power which
28:46which by its very nature
28:48is illimitable
28:52certainly all those who have framed
28:54written constitutions
28:56contemplate them as forming the
28:57fundamental and paramount law of the
28:59nation
29:01and consequently
29:02the theory of every such government must
29:04be that an act of the legislature
29:07repugnant to the constitution
29:09is void
29:11john marshall's decision in marbury
29:13versus madison was as follows
29:16he said
29:17the constitution does not empower the
29:19supreme court to issue a direct order to
29:21mr madison to produce the commission to
29:23which mr marbury is legally entitled
29:26in other words he said
29:28we have no jurisdiction in this case
29:32but then he went a step further
29:35he said section 13 of the judiciary act
29:38of 1789 purports to give the court a
29:40power which the constitution in fact
29:43does not give it
29:44section 13 therefore is unconstitutional
29:48what on the surface looked like
29:50inter-party wrangling was used by
29:52marshall to resolve a great political
29:55issue
29:56the question
29:57who is to say what the constitution
29:59means was answered
30:01the supreme court
30:03said john marshall
30:05president jefferson disagreed i disagree
30:08yes
30:10of course i disagree
30:14why should the supreme court and the
30:16supreme court only have the right to
30:19tell us what the constitution means
30:22the constitution which mr marshall so
30:25cherishes
30:27wills that the three branches of the
30:29government are equal
30:31equal mr madison
30:34it is the judiciary branch's province to
30:37tell us what the law is claims mr
30:39marshall on what ground
30:42i ask you on what ground
30:46isn't that much in our constitution to
30:48justify mr marshall's claim
30:51let each branch of the government decide
30:55within the framework of the duties
30:57assigned it by the constitution for
30:59itself
31:01and for itself only
31:04what the constitution means and what it
31:06means not
31:08now that is proper that is
31:11in conformance with the principle of
31:12equality of the three branches
31:17and if there had to be
31:22if there had to be
31:24one branch
31:26to interpret the constitution for the
31:28others
31:31i say let it be congress
31:38president jefferson won his battle
31:40against marbury and his companions
31:42they never received their commissions
31:45chief justice john marshall however won
31:47the war to establish the supreme court
31:49as the final arbiter of the meaning of
31:51the constitution
31:53he declared for the first time an act of
31:55congress signed into law by the
31:57president as unconstitutional
32:00the right of the courts to pass on the
32:02constitutionality of laws
32:04the principle of judicial review was not
32:06new
32:07it had been exercised before at the
32:09state level
32:10in marbury versus madison john marshall
32:13extended it to encompass federal law
32:16in so doing he established the right of
32:18the supreme court of the united states
32:20to say what the constitution means and
32:23what it means not to the government of
32:25the states and to the federal government
32:28as well
32:29marbury versus madison taught america
32:31that the constitution cannot be ignored
32:34in settling great political issues
32:36it stressed the limitations on
32:38governmental power provided by the
32:40instrument
32:41and it affirmed the constitutional duty
32:44of the supreme court to decide if and
32:46when the political branches of
32:48government exceeded their constitutional
32:51bounds
32:54[Music]

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of El caso Marbury vs. Madison en español (excelente recreación) by LP - Pasión por el Derecho, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 4,104 words across 803 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.