Discretion Of Judges On The Judicial Review

What was the court’s decision in the case? What reason did they give? What landmark case did they cite?

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.

In what is considered the first anti-federalist paper, “Brutus” writes: “In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other. This will retard the operations of government, and prevent such conclusions as will promote the public good.” This clash of ideas, opinions and lifestyles, he argued, did not lend itself to any overarching federal government. He continues: “The United States includes a variety of climates. The productions of the different parts of the union are very variant, and their interests, of consequence, diverse. Their manners and habits differ as much as their climates and productions; and their sentiments are by no means coincident. The laws and customs of the several states are, in many respects, very diverse, and in some opposite; each would be in favor of its own interests and customs, and, of consequence, a legislature, formed of representatives from the respective parts, would not only be too numerous to act with any care or decision, but would be composed of such heterogenous and discordant principles, as would constantly be contending with each other” (Anti-Federalist 1). The Federal Farmer adds: “Different laws, customs, and opinions exist in the different states, which by a uniform system of laws would be

Why do you suppose that Hamilton was so careful to point out the relative weakness of the judiciary? – I believe Hamilton really stressed the feebleness of the Judiciary branch because he wanted to prove the anti-federalists wrong as this set of papers was meant to get the Constitution ratified. By making the point that the judiciary branch poses no real threat to liberty like Congress and the President can, this proves that the proposed Constitution will protect individual rights like the anti-federalists

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

In the Marbury Vs. Madison’s case Justice John Marshall represented the case and I strongly believe that his points were solid and worth to be granted true and rational. John Marshall’s argument is that the acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution are not laws and therefore are not progressed into law to the courts, and ultimately the judicial boards’ first responsibility is always to practice and to make firm of the Constitution.

I. The United States Supreme Court receives many appeals, but it hears and rules on a small percentage of cases each year. Numerous factors influence the actions of the court, both in deciding to hear a case and in the decisions it hands down.

1) Why does Kennedy refer to the case of Marbury vs. Madison as “epochal?” Describe the short and long-term ramifications to the decision.

Robert Yates’, an anti-Federalist and author of both Brutus no.11 and 12, main concern associated with the power of elected Federal Branches. Robert Yates opposed the ratification of the Constitution, and had been convinced that the federal judges would interpret the Constitution broadly, “so as to expand their jurisdiction and influence, and that Congress would be supportive of such loose interpretations because they would ultimately expand federal legislative power as well. Judicial interpretation would become the vehicle for expanding federal power. (P.57)” He thought that more power should be held within the states. Yates had a great amount of concern that the Supreme Court would have more power than the Constitution. In Brutus no.11, Yates aims his focus towards the overall power of the judiciary branch and protecting the individual. He claimed the Judiciary branch had no accountability, meaning in hindsight, they could basically do whatever they pleased simply because they had no one to keep them in check, asides from the President. In Brutus no.11, he explains; “The opinions of the Supreme Court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the Constitution, that can correct their errors, or control their adjudications. (Pg.57)” Yates

The concept of Judicial Review is to review cases using the power of the courts over the actions of the executive and legislative branches to deem them invalid or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has a unique position because of its broad commitment to the American People and its Constitution. The Court's principles on judicial review are that The Constitution is the supreme law of the country, they have ultimate authority on constitutional matters, and they must vote against any law that clashes with the constitution. One of the most significant cases that brought forth such convictions was the case of Marbury vs. Madison in 1803. Which was a case that brought many complications because when Jefferson ordered his Secretary of State James

Court cases were introduced debating the power of the national government over the power of the state government. The decision in the McCulloch vs. Maryland court case in 1819 stated that “ the powers of the general government... Are delegated by the states, who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the states, who alone possess supreme dominion” (Document D). This was clearly an issue in this time period, having to be resolved by a court and a jury. Political figure such as John Quincy Adams and President Monroe also face disagreements regarding the country's political stance.

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

That is when James Madison was ordered not to give William Marbury his commission because the partisan battle was at such a high level. William Marbury would not accept this as his outcome so he petitioned the court and started with, “No cause has been shown, and the present motion is for a mandamus.” Marbury was essentially stating that James Madison had no right to withhold his commission and that it was in violation of his rights. He argued that his commission was valid and that it would be a tragedy if the court was to rule in favor of Madison over Marbury. It was a strong petition form Marbury that would lead to the most important Supreme Court decisions in

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.

Judicial Review is one of the court's most important powers and arguably the most powerful one that this branch or any branch has. This is a power that allows the supreme court to make legislative and executive actions subject to review and possible invalidation. The power of Judicial Review was earned in the Supreme Court Case Marbury v. Madison. In this case it was decided that James Madison’s decisions to prevent William Marbury from taking office as justice of the peace was unconstitutional, this has extended the power and now created what is known as judicial review. This has continued to affect laws and acts presently such as in the case of United States v. Nixon when Nixon was denied the powers of absolute executive privilege due to