In a statement by Chief Justice John Marshall, the court concluded, first, that Madison`s refusal to deliver Marbury`s contract was unlawful and, second, that it was normally appropriate for a court in such situations to order the representative of the government concerned to hand over the commission.  But in Marbury`s case, the court did not order Madison to comply. In reviewing the section of the law passed by Congress that gave jurisdiction to the Supreme Court over types of cases such as Marbury`s, Marshall noted that he had broadened the definition of Supreme Court jurisdiction beyond what was originally set out in the U.S. Constitution.  Marshall then removed this section of the law, announcing that U.S. courts have the power to strike down laws that they believe violate the Constitution.  As this meant that the court did not have jurisdiction over the case, it could not issue marbury`s request. For example, the request to suspend the rules and adopt a measure may even put an undeclared measure on hold, as the application may suspend the rule that requires it to be declared before it can be considered. However, the spokesperson has the discretion to recognise this request and, to this end, normally recognises the chairman of the committee responsible (or the chairman appointed by the chairman).
Similar practices govern the recognition of requests for review of a measure by unanimous consent. Finally, Parliament can adopt a “special rule” ordering that a specific undeclared measure be “withdrawn” from the committee and included in plenary. However, as a general rule, special rules are preferred for examination only if they are submitted by the Committee on the Rules of Procedure. Third, the Court said that denying the supremacy of the Constitution over the laws of Congress would mean that “the courts must turn a blind eye to the Constitution and see only the law.”  This, Marshall wrote, would make Congress omnipotent, since none of the laws it passed would ever be invalid.  Once the House of Representatives has responded to a motion to exempt a measure, any further action under the discharge rule is excluded for any action on the same subject during the same session of Congress (i.e., approximately for that calendar year). With the last unconditional adjournment of a congress, all legislative work comes to an end, including pending discharge motions. “Final consent” here includes the passage of joint bills and resolutions, the submission to states for ratification of joint resolutions proposing constitutional amendments approved by resolutions of the House of Representatives and finally approved by both houses for simultaneous resolutions. The examination of most of these 30 measures in the House of Representatives was carried out according to procedures other than those of the discharge rule itself – usually either after the competent committee had reported them, or as explained below under the heading “Restoration of control of the agenda by the Rules Committee”. The only measures that came into effect after the House passed as part of the discharge process itself were P.L. 75-718, the first minimum wage bill, in the 75th Congress (1937-1938) and P.L. 86-568, a federal law on wages, in the 86th Congress (1959-1960). For more information, see CRS Report 97-856, The Discharge Rule in the House: Recent Use in Historical Context, from [Author Name Cleaned]; and CRS Report 90-84 GOV, The Discharge Rule in the House of Representatives: Procedure, History, and Statistics, now archived but available in the United States Congress, House Committee on Rules, Subcommittee on Rules of the House, Discharge Petition Disclosure, Hearing on H.Res.
134, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., 14 September 1993 (Washington: GPO, 1993), pp. 175-293. Within the structure of this general mechanism, the discharge rule involves two different approaches: the application can be submitted for examination either directly on the undeclared measure itself or on a special regime. The first approach allows the referral committee to annul the attempted discharge by notifying the document, because as soon as the committee no longer has the document in its possession, it can no longer be released. The committee can even wait for the 218 signatures to be available and then report on the measure before the next discharge day. The request for discharge cannot then be invoked because it is contested. Although the measure is then procedurally available for review, it is unlikely to reach the ground unless the Report Committee takes steps to raise it. Debtors are usually able to repay most or all of their debts. Once a debt has been settled, a creditor cannot attempt to collect it from the debtor. If a measure that reaches the minimum price per discharge is a “cash bill” (including an authorization, allocation or revenue account), the Standing Orders of the House stipulate that it is first considered in committee of the whole; The right request, therefore, is that the House decide on the Committee of the Whole for consideration. If the House approves this motion, the measure will be considered under the equivalent of an “open rule”: it will be read clause by amendment, and any German amendment is appropriate for each article. This form of consideration does not make it possible to limit or structure the process of change or, conversely, to grant any derogations that may be necessary for future changes.
It also excludes limiting the time for general debate on the measure or placing it under the control of the leaders, unless there is unanimous consent. .