Marbury Vs. Madison (1803)

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 However, through complex political maneuvering the Judiciary Act of 1802, was enacted which repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 reestablishing the Judiciary Act of 1789 and postponing the case until 1803.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

Marbury v. Madison has been hailed as one of the most significant cases that the Supreme Court has ruled upon. In this paper, I will explain the origins and background in the case, discuss the major Constitutional issues it raised, and outline the major points of the courts decision. I will also explain the significance of this key decision.

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

Throughout history, many cases have gone beyond local courts and have reached Supreme Court. One of the most famous cases to reach Supreme Court is Marbury v. Madison. Marbury v. Madison was a case that was fought because James Madison refused to deliver Marbury’s commission. In return, Marbury had petitioned for a writ of mandamus in order to receive his commissions. The Supreme Court had reinforced the “Marbury” decision in many cases, for example McCulloch v. Maryland, Cohens v. Virginia, and United States v. Le Baron.

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,

The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.

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.

As the former mentioned document does not forbid the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus but simply does not state it, I do not feel like the Judiciary Act of 1789 is in conflict with the Constitution. The Constitution is not capable of including every eventuality there is, therefore declaring every law not mentioned in the Constitution as unconstitutional would restrict the actions of the legislative and executive immensely. Instead, declaring acts as unconstitutional should be limited to laws or actions directly interfering with it. I do think judicial review is an important tool in the modern system of checks and balances and plays a significant role in keeping different branches from gaining too much power. It is, therefore, necessary to

The Marbury vs. Madison case was a very influential case regarding the way branches can check the government. This case has shaped the way the Supreme Court ultimately makes decisions and how much of a decision they can actually make. I believe that without this case government today, would struggle with a lot of difficult decisions, that this case has cleared up. The Marbury vs. Madison case was the first United States Supreme Court case to have the principle of Judicial Review.

The case of Marbury v. Madison centers on a case brought before the Supreme Court by William Marbury. Shortly after Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the election of 1800, Congress increased the number of circuit courts. Adams sought to fill these new vacancies with people who had Federalist backgrounds. To accomplish this, he used the powers granted under the Organic Act to issue appointments to 42 justices of the peace and 16 circuit court justices for the District of Columbia. Adams signed the appointments on his last day in office and they were subsequently sealed by Secretary of State John Marshall. However, many of the appointments were not delivered before Adams left office and Jefferson ordered the deliveries stopped

The judicial branch, in its conception as outlined in Article III of the constitution was designated the “power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases (The White House)”. However, since the ratification of the constitution, much like the other two branches of government, the judicial branch has also experienced an expanded delegation of authority and power. This notion is evidenced in the 1803 decision on the case of Marbury v. Madison where the Supreme Court asserted its power of judicial review by ”blocking last-minute appointments by outgoing President John Adams (Chegg)” by declaring that these actions should not be permitted because the supreme court, under chief justice john Marshall declared them unconstitutional(Cornell). This set forth a very powerful precedent for judicial review, one that continues to play a critical role in political discourse today. Although the evolution of the judiciary commenced following the fallout of the 1803 decision, the courts have delegated to themselves a controversial role as policy-makers in response to societal demands and stresses placed upon the political system specifically during and after the civil rights movement that occurred in the United States during the 20th century. This expanded role into the realm of actual policy making is derived from the belief that the constitution is indeed a living and flexible document that must retain the capability for change. As the

Judicial review, similar to many other topics in life, has both its pros and cons. Now, by taking stock of what these pros and cons are it is possible for a person to form his or her own opinion on whether the pros outweigh the cons or vice versa, but in order to properly sort out the pros and cons it is important to list out at the very least the major ones from each category, and carefully consider their connotations. The list of major pros based on historical use of judicial review is a good place to start because it will also give a baseline for the cons on this subject as well. Now, as the Marbury v. Madison case showed one pro that can be listed is judicial review helps ensure that Congress does not have the final say on congressional acts as judicial review can be used to consult the Constitutional laws

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