“We have neither specific allegations nor proof. Charges require both.”
On January 6, when courts failed to deliver what he wanted, he turned to the crowd. The Capitol fell under siege. But the judiciary held.
Now it’s 2025. And the storm is back.
Congress is considering the Judicial Relief Clarification Act—stripping federal courts of power to block federal laws unless they can prove “irreparable harm to national unity.” No one agrees what that means. That’s the point.
Meanwhile, states are reviving their own defiance—abortion travel bans, curriculum censorship, election interference. They’re not waiting on Supreme Court rulings. They’re ignoring them.
Chief Justice Roberts, still on the bench, offered a single warning: “Impeachment,” he said in May, “is not a form of disagreement.”
He didn’t name names. He didn’t have to.
This was never just about William Marbury.
It was about whether anyone gets to say “no” to power. Every time a president overstepped, or a Congress tried to steamroll, it was Marshall’s quiet revolution that stood in the way.
“Marshall didn’t just create judicial review. He built a failsafe.”
Two hundred and twenty-two years later, we’re still standing on it.
For now.
Citations:
John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S.137 (1803), in National Archives: Milestone Documents archives.gov archives.gov .
Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, June 13, 1804 (Jefferson expresses displeasure at Adams’s midnight appointments) cooperative-individualism.org .
Niles’ Weekly Register (Baltimore), April 24, 1830, reporting the famous exchange of toasts by Andrew Jackson and John C. Calhoun on the Union rarenewspapers.com .
President Andrew Jackson, Proclamation to the People of South Carolina (Dec. 10, 1832), denouncing nullification as treason avalon.law.yale.edu .
Roger B. Taney, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S.393 (1857), majority opinion (on blacks having “no rights which the white man was bound to respect”) constitutioncenter.org .