Constitutional scholars have pointed out there is an inconsistency in Justice Marshall's opinion with respect to what the constitution specifically provides. What is the inconsistency?
See Related Questions below. Then let us know what you think.
http://www.jiskha.com/display.cgi?id=1270777331
the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.
To identify the inconsistency in Justice Marshall's opinion, we need to refer to the specific case and opinion you're referring to. Since you haven't mentioned a particular case or opinion by Justice Marshall, it is difficult to provide a direct answer. However, I can explain the general process you can follow to identify inconsistencies in legal opinions:
1. Determine the Case and Opinion: Identify the specific case and opinion you are referring to. Look for the case name or the specific context in which Justice Marshall expressed his opinion.
2. Read the Opinion: Find and read the actual opinion penned by Justice Marshall. Understanding the context and reasoning behind the opinion is crucial to identifying any inconsistencies.
3. Analyze Constitutional Provisions: Review the relevant provisions of the Constitution that are applicable to the case at hand. These may include specific articles, amendments, or recognized principles established by the Constitution.
4. Identify the Inconsistency: Compare the opinion expressed by Justice Marshall with the relevant provisions of the Constitution. Look for any conflicting statements, interpretations, or applications of constitutional principles.
5. Evaluate Scholarly Analysis: Consult constitutional scholars and legal experts who have analyzed the specific opinion in question. Their insights and critiques may help highlight any inconsistencies or contradictions.
By following these steps, you can identify any inconsistencies between the opinion expressed by Justice Marshall and the specific provisions of the Constitution under consideration. Remember that the evaluation of inconsistencies may involve subjective interpretation and ongoing scholarly debate.