An arco book arco is a registered trademark of Thomson Learning, Inc., and is used herein under license by Peterson’s. About The Thomson Corporation and Peterson’s

17. The correct answer is (B). A true monopoly is the absolute control of a single seller over an entire
market. Imagine, for example, that you own the only well in a certain region and that it is impossible

---

Lesson 6
138
w w w . p e t e r s o n s . c o m / a r c o
ARCO
■ SAT II Subject Tests
to import water into the area. You would have a monopoly on water in that area. What could you
charge for water? This is why monopolistic practices are usually outlawed.
Sometimes monopolies are unavoidable, for example, public utilities. Your region is probably
serviced by a particular power company. Would it be efficient to have several utilities in your area
trying to provide the same service? Probably not. This type of monopoly is tolerated and controlled
by the government.
18. The correct answer is (A). The case of Marbury v. Madison, decided by the United States Supreme
Court in 1803, established the principle of judicial review. The case is as interesting for the details of
political intrigue from which it arose as for the masterful judicial reasoning contained in the written
opinion of Chief Justice John Marshall.
In 1800, Federalist John Adams lost the presidential election to Republican Thomas Jefferson. One of
Adams’ last official acts was to fill the posts created by the Judiciary Act of 1801 with loyal members of the
Federalist party. Working against the clock on his last night in office, Adams finally signed the commission
for the least important posts on the list, the forty-two justices of the peace for the District of Columbia. At
that point, then Secretary of State John Marshall should have affixed the Great Seal of the United States to
the documents. Because of the time pressure, however, Marshall failed to attend to this final detail.
When President Jefferson later learned how many new federal judges had been appointed at the
last moment, he refused to deliver the defective commissions. In 1803, William Marbury, one of the
recipients of the last minute but defective commissions, sued the Secretary of State, James Madison,
in the Supreme Court of the United States. Marbury asked the Supreme Court to issue a writ of
mandamus compelling Madison to deliver to him his commission. The Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court at that time was former Secretary of State John Marshall.
Chief Justice Marshall found himself in a dilemma. On one side, he could decide in favor of Marbury
and order Madison to deliver the commission. He knew, however, that Madison, with the support of a
very popular president, would simply ignore the order and that the Supreme Court itself had no way of
enforcing the order. On the other side, he could decide for Madison giving the Republicans an important
victory. Rather than be impaled on either horn of this dilemma, Marshall slipped between them.
In general, for a court to hear a case it must have jurisdiction over the matter. The jurisdiction of
the federal courts is governed both by the Constitution and by legislation. Article III of the Constitu-
tion gives the Supreme Court original or trial jurisdiction over only two kinds of cases: those involv-
ing ambassadors and public ministers, etc., and those in which a state is a party. For other types of
cases, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction only to hear appeals from lower courts. In addition, Article
III gives the Congress the power to create lower federal courts and to define their jurisdiction.
When Marbury brought his suit to compel Madison to deliver his commission, he had to show the
Supreme Court that it had jurisdiction to hear the case. Obviously the case was not about ambassadors
and didn’t involve a state. Instead, Marbury argued that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over his
case based on Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which stated that the Court could issue writs of
mandamus in cases such as his.
Marshall reasoned that Marbury would be entitled to his writ but that the Supreme Court did not
have jurisdiction to give it to him. Section 13, according to Marshall, was in conflict with Article III
of the Constitution, which defines the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Congress has the
authority to define the original jurisdiction of lower courts and to place restriction on the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. But the Constitution gave Congress no authority to enlarge the
original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

---