Marbury V. 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 However, through complex political maneuvering the Judiciary Act of 1802, was enacted which repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 reestablishing the Judiciary Act of 1789 and postponing the case until 1803.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

The overall influence of the Supreme Court under John Marshall can be understood through the five main court cases over which he presided; Marbury v. Madison (1803), Fletcher v. Peck (1810), Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), and Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). The first significant case Marshall was faced with was Marbury v. Madison in 1803. In the last few days of his presidency, John Adams appointed members of the Federalist Party to the new offices he created within the judicial branch. When Thomas Jefferson took office he told James Madison, his secretary of state, not to deliver the unsent commissions to some of the “midnight appointments”, one of who was William Marbury. He appealed to the Supreme Court, asking for a court order that would require Madison to send out the commission, which was part of his job. The Judiciary Act of 1789 supported Marbury’s demands because it authorized the Supreme Court to order

The Constitution pays a massive role in court decisions both in the federal and state cases. If the State Supreme Court cannot come to a decision on a case, the case will be turned over to the Supreme Court who has the final authority in interpreting the meaning of the Constitution in any case. The courts also have the power of judicial review—to declare a law unconstitutional. Due to the decision of Chief Justice John Marshall the Supreme Court has this power from the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1801. The case Marbury v. Madison took place during the election of 1800 when Thomas Jefferson defeated President John Adams, but the new administration did not take office until March of 1801. When the new administration took office James Madison (Secretary of State) discovered that some commissions were not delivered. One of the people whose commission had not been received

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

Marshall complained that the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land” and that the Supreme Court ultimately has the final say so when it comes to evaluating the meaning of the Constitution. Marshall states, “ lt is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” To present Marshall’s initial plea at hand, Marshall argues that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. In Marshall 's perspective, Congress could not present the Supreme Court with the power to issue an order granting Marbury his commission. Only the Constitution could do so, and the document said nothing about the Supreme Court having the power to issue such an order. Thus, the Supreme Court could not force Jefferson and Madison to appoint Marbury, because it did not have the power to do so.

In the Marbury versus Madison case, Chief Judge John Marshall distinguishes three questions that are used in the judgement of the case. He debates whether the applicant has a right to the commission he demands; whether, if he has a right and that right has been violated, the laws of his country afford him a

Marbury, one of the “midnight judges” of 1801, was named a justice of peace for the District of Columbia, but he soon learned that his commission was being put off by James Madison. So, he sued. Marshall realized that the executive branch, completely controlled by Jeffersonians, could easily reject his ruling for his Federalist friend and lessen the power of the Judicial branch at the same time. He dismissed Marbury’s case, but also said that the basis of Marbury’s argument –the Judiciary Act of 1789 –was unconstitutional, thus establishing the establishing the principle of judiciary review, the principle by which courts can declare acts of either the executive branch or the legislative branch

Comstock, the Supreme Court was petitioned to examine the constitutionality of Congress’s claim that their actions were protected by the necessary and proper clause. It was reviewed by many federal courts of appeals, but ultimately it was deemed constitutional (Richey, 2009). The Supreme Court challenged Congress’s laws and decisions, and although they declared this situation constitutional, they could easily have called it unconstitutional and forced Congress to revoke its law or decision. That is the power John Marshall granted the Supreme Court back during Marbury vs. Madison. He made The Constitution the ultimate authority over the “will of the majority” (“John Marshall”, 2016, para. 5), and any law passed either by the people themselves or the people’s representatives “could not supersede the Constitution” (“John Marshall”, 2016, para. 5). The Supreme Court had the final say on whether the government was continuing to act under the authority of The Constitution or not (“John Marshall”,

Established in 1789, the Supreme Court was created to interpret the meaning of the Constitution and to use that interpretation to declare any actions of the Legislative or Executive Branches unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court was capable of also acquiring more functions as evidence of the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). The case dealt with President John Adams appointing sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Colombia. Adams appointed these justices so that his political party would have more justices than the rival party. Problematically, the appointment letters were not delivered by the end of his term. By that basis, President Thomas Jefferson annulled the appointments because he retained the right to appoint the justices during his time of jurisdiction. Consequently, this aggravated the appointed justice and therefore one of the justices named William Marbury filed a case in the Supreme Court over the commissions that they were promised (Goldstone). The Court ruled that Marbury did have a right to commission and also with it made a statement that enacted the doctrine of Judicial Review. This meant that the court had the "right to review, and possibly nullify, laws and governmental acts that violate the constitution. Judicial Review is a means of assuring that politicians and various other leaders adhere to the constitution and do not use powers granted to them by

In a letter, Thomas Jefferson says, “When the legislative or executive junctionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity.” John Marshall created the precedent that makes Jefferson’s statement true. Marbury v. Madison is one of the most important cases he dealt with because John Marshall established Judicial Review. The case was centered around James Madison’s refusal to grant William Marbury a writ of mandamus as he was the new Justice of the Peace by President John Adams. Upon the refusal from Madison, Marbury went to the Supreme Court where John Marshall used judicial review ruling that what Congress had done was unconstitutional; however, that the Supreme Court could not issue the writ of mandamus. Chief Marshall directly asserted the role of the Supreme Court in his Marbury v. Madison court decision, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marshall asserted and justified the power of the Supreme Court in another case being Cohens v. Virginia. In the decision of this case Marshall stated that the Federal Supreme Court, “…is authorized to decide all cases of every description arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.” The most important aspect of this case was that it gave the Supreme Court the power to review any state Supreme

Although Marbury was indeed entitled to it, he was denied the commission because Congress can’t expand the power of the Supreme Court so the Supreme Court does not have the authority to issue writs of mandamus. Also, Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with Article III Section 2 of the Constitution so therefore it was void.

The case Marbury vs. Madison led to the most important decision the US Supreme Court has ever made. The parties, William Marbury, appointed Justice of Peace under the Judiciary Act of 1801 by John Adams the former US president, and James Madison, Thomas Jefferson’s Secretary of State at the time, had conflicting interests concerning William Marbury’s right to office. Madison refused to grant Marbury his appointment. This led to Marbury ordering the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus, obliging Marbury to grant his commission. Marbury’s main argument was that the Judiciary Act of 1789 granted the power to issue former to the Supreme Court. By refusing the appointment, Marbury claims, is Madison violating his legal rights to obtain the commission. The Court’s ruling in this case, delivered by Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803, had an important impact on the establishment of judicial review. But was the Court’s decision justified?

The Court’s final decision was unanimous and it denied Marbury’s request for the writ of mandamus. Marbury never received his appointment. This case is significant because it established the concept of judicial review. The Constitution does not specifically grant the judiciary this power. Judicial review allows federal courts to review laws and determine if they are constitutional or not. This gives the judiciary the power to void any laws that are found to violate any part of the Constitution. Therefore, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the federal courts the authority to hear mandamus cases was unconstitutional. Ironically, Chief Justice Marshall is the person who was the Secretary of State under Adams that sealed Marbury’s appointment.

5. No. The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus.

Marbury’s commission was considered null and void due to section 13 of the judiciary act of 1789 that conflicted with Article III Section 2 of the US constitution. Article III section 2 of the US constitution signifies two categories of jurisdiction for the Supreme Court, original and appellate. However, Congress does have the power to regulate appellate jurisdiction, though, no such power is given under the regulation of original jurisdiction. In the case of Marbury vs. Madison the court was unable to provide the remedy in which Marbury considered, for there was no legitimate