distinguish successful and unsuccessful assertions of judicial power and what puts Marbury in one class and Dred in another

To distinguish successful and unsuccessful assertions of judicial power, we need to understand the context and outcome of each case. In the case of Marbury v. Madison and Dred Scott v. Sandford, we can examine the following factors:

1. Context: Consider the circumstances and legal issues surrounding each case. Marbury v. Madison focused on whether the Supreme Court had the authority to review the constitutionality of acts made by the executive and legislative branches. Dred Scott v. Sandford involved questions about the rights of enslaved individuals and the legality of slavery.

2. Outcome: Examine the result or ruling in each case. Marbury v. Madison is considered a successful assertion of judicial power because it established the power of judicial review, allowing the Supreme Court to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. On the other hand, Dred Scott v. Sandford is seen as an unsuccessful assertion of judicial power, as it affirmed the constitutionality of slavery and denied rights to enslaved individuals.

Now, let's specifically address why Marbury falls into one class and Dred Scott into another:

Marbury v. Madison (successful assertion):
- Marbury v. Madison is considered a successful assertion of judicial power because it confirmed the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, particularly in declaring acts of Congress unconstitutional.
- In this case, Chief Justice John Marshall asserted the principle of judicial review, stating that it is the duty of the courts to interpret the Constitution and strike down laws that conflict with it.
- The outcome of the case established the power of the Supreme Court and solidified its role as the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of laws.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (unsuccessful assertion):
- Dred Scott v. Sandford is viewed as an unsuccessful assertion of judicial power because it resulted in a widely criticized decision that exacerbated tensions over slavery.
- The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger Taney, held that enslaved individuals were not considered citizens and therefore had no standing to bring a lawsuit. Additionally, the Court declared that Congress did not have the power to regulate slavery in the territories.
- The decision was deeply divisive, as it effectively denied rights to enslaved individuals and declared that the federal government did not have the power to intervene in slavery-related matters. It further contributed to the widening sectional conflict that eventually led to the Civil War.

In summary, Marbury v. Madison is considered a successful assertion of judicial power because it established the principle of judicial review, while Dred Scott v. Sandford is viewed as an unsuccessful assertion of judicial power due to its controversial ruling on the rights of enslaved individuals.