# Talk:Marbury v. Madison

Infobox says "Laws applied: U.S. Const. arts. I, III; Judiciary Act of 1789 § 13". Article I of course falls within the scope of Congress and its policy-making (i.e. laws). Wouldn't be the case of referencing Article I also directly in the text if possible? And, secondarily, shouldn't "Category:United States Constitution Article One case law" be added? Lone Internaut (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

In the captions to the 4 portraits besides the 'Background' section, Jefferson is attributed with the belief that 'Marbury's undelivered commission was void'.   Is that so: the Court held it was not void, of course.  Marbury had the title of JP, just lacked an easy means to prove it.  (No point rocking up to the JP court and demanding to take a seat - or writing to the Treasury demanding the salary - if you didn't have the Commission or a court order to evidence it).
Would Jefferson even have thought in such legalistic terms - 'void' having a distinct legal meaning.
Wouldn't it be truer to say in the caption that Jefferson 'believed withholding Marbury's commission was a legal way to prevent him assuming the judgeship'  ? Laworr1 (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

article 1 which is mentioned in the laws applied section is not mentioned anywhere else in the article or the original supreme court opinion so it should be remove from laws applied 70.168.135.229 (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)