First Obligation By John Marshall

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 Marbury v. Madison in 1803, Marshall overturned an act of congress for the first time that conflicted with the constitution. It was a daring step for a politically vulnerable court and Marshall crafted the opinion in such a way that Thomas Jefferson could not reject it. John Marshall had strong views that made him dominate the court from 1801 to 1835 and personally responsible for evaluating it in person of real authority. Marshall, also shared his power with other follow Justices that often curved his opinions in order to arrive at consensus decisions. Marshall established a model that all future Chief Justices would be measured to. The United States Supreme Court used the Necessary and Proper Clause in the McCulloch v. Maryland case. McCulloch v. Maryland case debated that if congress have the power to charter a bank. In 1791, the first charted bank; the First Bank of the United States was created, but the

A common theme for the two passages is obligations. There is obligations that everyone has to do. Just like how in the first passage the speaker had to shovel off his sidewalk for the children who walk to school on it. The second passage says that she loves people who jump right into their obligations, just like an ox pulling a cart. The second passage also says she wants to be like those people who submerge into their obligations. An important message that readers can learn is that you will be rewarded if you do your tasks you are supposed to do, and if you don't do your tasks then you might get

McCulloch vs. Maryland John Marshall was a prominent figure in the history of the United States as the man who helped shape the Supreme Court to the power it is today. His decisions strengthened the power of the federal government in period of growth for our new nation and established a greater purpose for the Supreme Court. Born September 24, 1755 in Virginia, he went on to attend the college of William and Marry, which became his only formal education. Early in the revolutionary war, he served under the Third Virginia Continental Regiment, rising through the ranks to lieutenant and captain.

That day, the justices honed in on the Fifth Amendment aspects of the case, which pleased John Flynn to no end. The last man to present a position in the case before the court was Thurgood Marshall, whose personal opinions were diametrically opposed to the position of his employer, the U.S. government.

The USSC held that even though William Marbury (P) was entitled to a remedy, Congress did not have the authority to expand the USSC original jurisdiction outlined in Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 expanding

Marbury's case was unconstitutional because the Supreme Court didn't have the original jurisdiction over the case. This means the Supreme Court couldn't give Marbury his writ of mandamus even if they wanted to. The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction when it deals with Ambassadors, public ministers, and other consuls.

In Marbury vs. Madison (1803) the U.S Supreme Court ruled that Marbury was entitled to his commission, however, the court did not have original jurisdiction over the case and could not issue a writ of mandamus to remedy Marbury’s case. In addition, the court ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1801 was unconstitutional because it gave powers to the Court not explicitly given to them in the Constitution, including the power to issue a writ of mandamus. The court’s decision avoided the problem at hand, holding them neither responsible for providing a remedy, but also free from the responsibility of forcing President Jefferson to deliver Marbury’s commission, which if challenged could have resulted in a substantially different outcome. Justice Marshall’s

Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution states that: “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Throughout the course of American history, past Presidents have committed actions that have brought up the discussion and even started the process of impeachment from holding office. In the chapter “Impeachment in the Constitutional Order” by Jeffery K. Tulis, he talks about the differences between the legalistic and political interpretations of impeachment and how to properly use the process in a successful manner. Tulis states “how and why the impeachment process, far from politically irrelevant, is a vital attribute of the theoretical architecture of a well- functioning separation of powers regime” (Tulis 229).

In everyday life people can do common to uncommon things. From toddlers eating up toys to people vandalizing properties. Yes we are given in life rights as citizens but nevertheless there is a certain extent to what we can and can’t do. Authority is given to the government to protect the people and to keep the world stable.Of course there’s been cases where “Social Necessity” isn’t used in a way for the public to feel safe and there for people create protests and riots to incorporate their point of view.

Our Constitution is over two centuries old and since the birth of it as early as 1803 the Supreme Court defined its role and power in the case, Marbury v. Madison, 1803, establishing the authority to define what the law is. Thus, if the law is confusing, it is up to the courts to interpret the law through the process of judicial review. There is much controversy as to whether or not judges are following the laws as written or imposing their personal preferences and rewriting law to suit themselves. Ackerman believes “it’s a good thing that formal amendment is so hard; otherwise, the Constitution would become a mess, full of details signifying little,” (Ackerman, 2007 p. 1743). There are opposing viewpoints as to the approach and evolving perspectives in the decisions made by our judges. I will analysis the opposing proponents, originalists and Living Constitutionalists, viewpoints in their interpretation of the Constitution and present their arguments in relation to their perspective on the Constitution. In addition, I will apply their interpretational philosophies in the case Griswold v. Connecticut and ascertain the impact of their philosophies to the outcome of the case.

To summarize,  I made two main arguments to refute the  claim there is a natural duty to obey the law under a reasonably  decent democratic society as it is the best way to rescue others.  The first argument involves the natural theory has legitimate concern with potential unjust law that puts people back in a dangerous condition of the state of nature.  The government does this by claiming to advance an impartial good through an unjust law that must be non-voluntary follow. The limitation to my first argument is the expectation a decent democratic society will not change their unjust laws. However, even if a decent democratic society were to changed the law, there is increase ambiguity in the natural theory. In my second argument, I have

Since the post-french revolution era, a fundamental tenet of the West has been the right to free speech - crucial for a successful democracy. The first ammendment - apart from protecting the right to profess and practice ones religion or ideology, it also ensures that such an expression precludes from any sort of repecursions. A third entity included in the first ammendment is the right to be heard, the opinion to be heard by the masses and the greivances to the government, which is essential to the smooth working of the society. Thus the first ammendment ensures that the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition are protected. The idea of imposing limits on rights, ensures the liberties of another individual is not transgressed in the process of exercising ones own. To the very end, the supreme court has set limits on free speech identifying the threat to disruption of normal functionality of school or existing community standards.

Dr. Walter E. Williams, an economist and author, during his speech, “The Legitimate Role of Government in a Free Society,” stated, “A primary justification for the growth of government in our country, far beyond what the founders envisioned for us, is to promote fairness and justice.” Throughout history, through the modern education system, the media, and overall American culture, we are taught to believe that the original Constitution, written by our Founding Fathers, is a document promoting justice, fairness, and equality for all men. While this is not the position of some, I believe it to be entirely true. While there are many reasons that the Constitution promotes justice and fairness, I base my position on four important factors. The first is that it can be amended. The second is the establishing of checks and balances. The third is the freedom of expression. Finally, the fourth is the Bill of Rights. Through exploring these factors, we can see that the original Constitution was, in fact, a document that had the overall goodness and wellbeing of all men in mind.

Undoubtedly, the constitutional principle of the rule of law is one of the most essential values in the English legal system. It has aptly been characterized as “a wrapper that is placed around a bundle of more specific principles”. Interestingly, prominent personalities like inter alia, Lord Bingham, Jeffrey Jowell and Dicey, have identified that legality, certainty, accountability, efficiency, due process and access to justice are only a number of those specific principles which all together constitute the rule of law. Some of these values reflect the formal conception of the rule of law while others, the substantive. Furthermore, it would be an omission not to say that, within the absence of a written constitution, the rule of law places a significant role within the English legal system.