Jefferson Vs Madison

In the year 1803 the case of Marbury v. Madison was brought before the Supreme Court in order to address the issue of William Marbury’s appointment as federal circuit judge. This created a unique and complex challenge for the Supreme Court of the time because they were operating under no legal precedent, which meant that they had no prior cases to reference to reach a ruling. The issue came to a head after the Judiciary Act of 1801 allowed for President John Adams to appoint sixteen new circuit judges one of them being William Marbury. However, before Secretary of State Marshall ran out of time before he was able to deliver Marbury’s appointment. When the new Secretary of State James Madison entered office, he refused to deliver Marbury’s appointment, claiming that it was too late. Outraged, Marbury filed a writ of mandamus against Madison in order to force him to complete the specified action, which in this case was to deliver the commission. However, through complex political maneuvering the Judiciary Act of 1802, was enacted which repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 reestablishing the Judiciary Act of 1789 and postponing the case until 1803. One of the key issues in the case was then if William Marbury was entitled to a remedy for the deprivation of his right to his commission. Chief Justice John Marshall with a narrow and technical ruling then determined that since President Adams with his signature had completed Marbury’s commission of appointment he was entitled to the

John Marshall was the Secretary of State for President Adams. It was his job to deliver these commissions to the new appointees. Many of them were delivered, but some were not, including, William Marbury's. When the new President, Thomas Jefferson, was sworn in, he told the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to not deliver the commissions to the other judge appointees. Marbury and several others brought

Thomas Jefferson and Niccolo Machiavelli share similar and different thoughts on how a government should run. On how the government should function. From the rule of the government the rule of the people. However Machiavelli's essay is more cynical, while on the other hand Jefferson is more logical. We might live in a Machiavellian world but it all depends on what people believe in. Personally I believe that Machiavelli's philosophy is cynical compared to Jefferson, Therefore I believe more in Jefferson's piece which is far more realistic although Machiavelli still catches realism in the world we live today.

During the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison, Republicans, such as Jefferson were seen as strict constructionists of the Constitution while Federalists, like Madison, were generally looser with their interpretations of the Constitution's literal meaning. While the constructionist ideas were part of what separated the two parties from one another, Jefferson and Madison are both guilty of not adhering to these ideas on many occasions. Jefferson writes in a letter to Gideon Granger expressing his idea that the United States is too large to have only one central government, and the states should receive more power, which goes against the fact that the Constitution was created in order to unite a new country. Also, when passing the

Madison hoped it would in time become much more than a parchment fence against repressive actions. The protection of our constitutional rights is greatly strengthened when those rights and the responsibilities that flow from them are written not just on paper, but on the minds and hearts of the citizens. What James Madison will talk about is this matter as well as Patrick Henry who will oppose it can either convince or not convince the council into accepting the ratification as law for a checks and balances.

To conclude, the Marbury v. Madison case has greatly impacted the way the Supreme Court makes decisions. Marbury v. Madison had incorporated the process of Judicial review, which allows courts to review the laws to see if they are being violated. Judicial review was utilized in countless cases, such as, Cohens v. Virginia, Ladue v. Gilleo, and McCulloch v. Maryland. To this day, the Supreme Court has utilized the Marbury v. Madison decision as a model for future

In Marbury v. Madison, he led the Court in striking down an act of Congress that was in conflict with the Constitution, legitimizing the doctrine of judicial review. Over the course of his thirty-four year term, Marshall oversaw numerous landmark cases, his decisions in which played an undeniably critical role in the early development of American law. Thanks to his firm hand and consistent principles, he was able to secure the institutional power of the Supreme Court in the face of staunch Jeffersonian opposition—affirming its place as an equal among the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

Were Jefferson and Madison able to settle the continuous disputes in the United States? The United States was facing many problems after the presidency of Washington and Adams. The problems included: debt, Spain’s westward expansion, the Constitution, confrontations with Britain and France, and political parties. Jefferson and Madison dealt with unresolved problems by Jefferson’s new course for government, the Louisiana Purchase, and the War of 1812 (Britain).

In the history of America, Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, and Hamilton, the Secretary of the Treasury, were two of the greatest leaders of our country. Although they both lead the country, that's where the similarities end as they had opposing views on everything. Jefferson was a republican while Hamilton was a federalist. Jefferson had been opposed to all of Hamilton's ideas, such as his financial plan, his interpretation of the powers of the government, his foreign policy, and his vision for the future of America. Jefferson was against Hamilton's views because his financial plan would ultimately destroy democracy in America, his interpretation of the powers of

Though both Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson served as members of President Washington’s cabinet, the two held very different views on the newly founded U.S. government, interpretation of its constitution, and the role of the “masses” in that government. These conflicting views would develop in two political parties, the Federalists led by Hamilton and the Democratic-Republicans led by Jefferson. Although both political parties presented enticing aspects, Hamilton’s views were much more reasonable and fruitful when compared Jefferson’s views; idealistic and too strict in reference to the constitution.

A lot of people go to jail that are wrongfully accused of a crime. It is the defense’s job to do anything in their power to make sure this doesn’t happen. Andrew Madison vs the People is a case about Andrew Madison being charged with assaulting a police officer and using disorderly conduct. He was hanging out after school with some friends when two police officers, Kevin Bates and Tommy Majors, thought they were harassing students. The police officers went to the scene and asked Andrew Madison and his friend to see their IDs. There was a misunderstanding and Andrew Madison ended up being arrested. In the case of Andrew Madison vs the People, the defense had a stronger case because there is no burden of proof, and they just have to find holes in the witness statements.

If Marshall’s actions were iconic, then after the Marbury v. Madison case, he would have been credited with the creation of judicial review. In reality, Marshall’s decision of allowing the courts to review the decisions of the legislative and executive branches was seen “as only a step in the continuous clarification of the theory of judicial function”(Clinton 117). So this supposed creator of a pivotal Judicial component was only seen as a stepping stone. Through the remainder of Marshall’s career as Chief Justice, no one revisited his thoughts on the Marbury v. Madison case, until his successor, Roger Taney, did in Dred Scott v. Sanford. Roger Taney seemed to have the same viewpoints as Marshall, always trying to keep the checks and balances intact and equal. He kept this dedication through the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, using judicial review to rule the Missouri Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional. Strangely, “Marbury’s importance as a precedent for judicial review of legislation was never mentioned by the Court”(Clinton 119). If Marbury v. Madison was such a pivotal case, then it would

John Adams, on the last day of his term, appointed forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices under the Organic Act, which was an attempt by the Federalists to take over the judicial branch before Thomas Jefferson took the office. The commissions were not delivered before the end of Adam’s term, so Thomas Jefferson claimed they were invalid and did not honor them. William Marbury was one of the appointed justices of the peace and appealed directly to the Supreme Court when he was denied his position. Due to the Judiciary Act of 1789, Marbury wanted the Supreme Court to make James Madison (Secretary of State) deliver the commissions.

After the Constitution was ratified people had their own opinion about it. The Federalists who were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay just to name a few has a loose interpretation of the Constitution. On the other hand, the Republicans which was lead by Thomas Jefferson had a very strict interpretation of the Constitution. Both parties had a different view which will cause controversy later on.

I believe that Marbury vs. Madison is important to Americans because it was a case in which the Supreme Court created the basis for the carrying out of judicial review in the United States under the Constitution. It demonstrates how the power of the Supreme Court, or the Federal Courts, varies not only on its constitutional ability, but on how the Constitution is understood, how the judicial branch dodges a confrontation with the other branches of government, and how the members of the court react about making a conclusion. The decision helped express the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American method of government. In this case, it was the first time that the court could declare an act