Constitutional scholars have pointed out there is an inconsistency in justice marshalls opinion with respect to what constitution specifically provides. What is that inconsistency?

Explanation:

With William Marbury being denied commission papers for his appointment, Justice Marshall of the Supreme Court commanded James Madison to deliver the commission papers to Marbury in accordance with the Judiciary Act of 1789.

The court issued a writ through the Judiciary Act of 1789 which appointed William Marbury as a justice in the District of Columbia though it was rejected by the secretary of state, James Madison.

Therefore, scholars have criticized Justice Marshall's opinion as unconstitutional and void as the Constitution did not grant Congress the right to make such a law.

"quid pro quo" harassment takes place when a supervisor requires sex, sexual favors, or sexual contact from an employee/job candidate as a condition of their employment. only supervisors who have the authority to make tangible employment actions (i.e. hire, fire, promote, can commit "quid pro quo" harassment.

that's real kind