Kristina K - Legal Writer
|Star Rating||4 Stars|
Summary of Legal ExperienceNew Yorkers shoveled snow in Manhattan because a man sneezed in China. Generations of high-school students struggled to take the derivative of f(x)= (x3 + 2x)x3 because Newton's apple fell from a tree. And a judge held in dissent that an al Qaeda terrorist suspect could pursue non-statutory damages against the U.S. Attorney General because John Marshall failed to deliver William Marbury his justice of the peace commission before midnight.
Chaos theory explains how small, initial changes in complex systems cause unexpected results. It explains how the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil sets off a tornado in Texas - or how a descending piece of fruit caused me great anxiety in applied calculus. And it may even explain how the key principle underlying Marbury v. Madison - ubi jus, ibi remedium - evolved from ancient legal maxim, to foundation for the judicial creation of a damages remedy, to twenty-first century terrorist tactic.
The Supreme Court in Marbury held that even in the absence of a private right of action, â€³the very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury.â€³ Or in other words, where there is a right, there is a remedy. Chief Justice Marshall may have anticipated that the Court would one day apply this principle to create remedies for violations of constitutional rights committed by federal officers. A right without a remedy, indeed, is really no right at all. But it is doubtful that even Marshall could have predicted how an extension of ubi jus, ibi remedium in American jurisprudence would prove advantageous to our adversaries: by clever use of the Constitution's own weight and strength, al Qaeda operatives have beseeched the judiciary to create remedies for their injuries, and, consequentially, have brought the Global War on Terror home.