The court case Marbury v. Madison (1803) is recognized and widely regarded as the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of judicial review. Then-Supreme Court Justice John Marshall is considered a pioneer of constitutional justice, but in the past he was never really recognized as such. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and that the modern glorification of Marbury v. Madison is merely the product of years of disagreement over the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall has also never really been recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford shows. John Adams, the former Federalist president, lost the 1800 election to Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic Republican. . Before Jefferson took office, Adams decided to appoint as many Federalists as possible to the Supreme Court, including William Marbury, all of whom were to be nominated to formally take the oath of office. However, Jefferson took office before the commissions could be delivered. and he ordered his secretary of state, James Madison, not to deliver the commissions. Marbury petitioned Marshall for a writ of mandamus (found in Section 13 of the Judicial Act), forcing Madison to issue the commissions. This argument between Marbury and Madison triggers the famous affair. The dilemma here lies in differences of interpretation. Some viewed Section 13 as unconstitutional because it added power to the judiciary, disrupting checks and balances. Others saw that “Marbury had been duly appointed…[and] the writ of mandamus [should] be an appropriate legal remedy to resolve Marbury's dilemma” (Clinton 86). Marshall wanted to issue the...... middle of paper ......n and scrutiny up to judicial review. It can be inferred that if, at present, judicial review were considered unconstitutional, then one could view Gibson's objections as we view Marbury v. Madison today. Marbury v. Madison is credited with creating the concept of judicial review, even though historical evidence proves otherwise. Similarly, John Marshall, former chief justice of the Supreme Court, was never really recognized for his contributions, although these were not unprecedented. As for the book “Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review” by: Robert Lowry Clinton, I found this book not very pleasant because it is a subject that hardly interests me. Additionally, the book was very difficult to read, with topics kind of scattered and not chronological. Works Cited Clinton, Robert Lowry. Marbury v. Madison and judicial review. Lawrence, Kan. : University of Kansas, 1989. Print.