They couldn't; that created a significant dilemma for Chief Justice John Marshall The Supreme Court has no enforcement power over its decisions, so there was no way they could compel Madison to deliver Marbury's commission, which may be one reason Marshall denied the Court had original jurisdiction over the matter. If the Court issued the requested writ of mandamus, and Madison refused to comply (a theory tested when Madison refused to answer the Court's inquiry as to why it should not issue a writ for the commission), it would weaken the power of the Judicial branch When a Court decision involves a question of documented law, the courts generally make a ruling, then remand the case back to the Circuit Court (US Court of Appeals) or state supreme court to ensure the decision is carried out. Otherwise, only respect for the Court and established protocol encourages compliance Case Citation: Marbury v.
Madison 5 US 137 (1803).
Not to deliver some of the papers. They actually had their papers in hand. Deliver his papers.
A writ of mandamus, which is the type of court order he needed. The commission in the first place — was the new Chief Justice. State to appoint Marbury to his position.
Marshall likely to side with, Marbury or Madison? Sure that the executive branch would deliver it? Power to force compliance?
But the executive branch refused to comply?
I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.