Conflict With The Courts: The Marbury V. Madison Case

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 However, through complex political maneuvering the Judiciary Act of 1802, was enacted which repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 reestablishing the Judiciary Act of 1789 and postponing the case until 1803.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

Laws are enforced to provide our society with safety, boundaries, protection of rights, and overall justice. The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights were established years ago to reduce the tensions and conflicts of our newly founded nation. It sought out to accomplish this by providing justice through an equal voice for all citizens. However, this equal voice for justice more often times than not is squandered and diminished. Things such as race, religion, and culture often times blur the lines of the law and fair outcomes in a court. Individuals feel that their beliefs are more important than the protection of rights and the deliverance of law or the law itself cannot go outside of its limitations to provide justice. This is apparent in the court cases of Marbury v Madison, Plessy v Ferguson, and the book To Kill a Mocking Bird by Harper Lee. These cases clearly exemplify that the law does not always provide justice, although it endeavors to do so.

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

In Supreme Conflict, Jan Crawford Greenburg provides insightful analysis and assessment of the politics surrounding the Supreme Court appointment process of Justices during the Rehnquist Court. Despite having seven conservative nominees the Rehnquist Court was deeply disappointing to those conservatives hoping to reverse decades of progressive rulings on key social issues. Throughout the book Greenburg describes both positive and negative appointments and nominations such as Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas, and David Souter. Greenburg also includes some background on the impact the Warren and Berger Courts had on the Rehnquist and later Roberts Courts.

The Federalists Papers were written in the eighteenth century by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay in an effort to persuade New Yorkers to ratify the new U.S. Constitution. These papers are said to be the key that unlocks the true interpretation and meaning of the Unites Sates Constitution. One of the controversial topics relating to the Constitution that the Federalists Papers help to straighten out, is the practice of judicial review by the Supreme Court. In this essay, I will point out many of the examples Alexander Hamilton gives in Federalist No. 78 that support the idea of the Supreme Court having power of judicial review over all levels of

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.

The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican

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.

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.

The Supreme Court of the United States is perhaps the most eminent judicial branch in the world and has served for a model for justice and democracy. However the Court is not exempted from scrutiny, and critics question the increasing politicized nature of the Court, from the appointment process to the nature of their decisions in landmark cases like; Dred Scott v. Sandford, Roe v. Wade to Bush v. Gore. Based on empirical evidence, this essay argues that the United States Supreme Court today is severely influenced by politics and not as much by law- at least in practice. Indeed, robust partisanship of the political interests of the President and Congress imposes on the constitutional function of the Court.

NPR’s legal affairs correspondent, Nina Totenberg, described a “horrible political storm” brewing over the Supreme Court of the United States (“CNN,” 2016, p. 1). While reporting for CNN, Totenberg used these words to draw attention to the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia in an era of modern politics in which the court has become more polarized than ever. The Supreme Court, the highest court of the land, is not only being severely impacted by partisan ties, but is now also deciding cases according to these biased beliefs. The Democratic and Republican parties, after corrupting and encroaching upon the federal judiciary, have made court nominations and rulings into a game of party politics, inevitably destroying the impartiality of the

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 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

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