Judicial Review: The United States Court System

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 However, through complex political maneuvering the Judiciary Act of 1802, was enacted which repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 reestablishing the Judiciary Act of 1789 and postponing the case until 1803.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

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.

The courts play a huge role in the criminal justice system. The dual court system of the United States (U.S.) was established through the U.S. constitution. The court systems have a multiple purposes and elements of court. Federal and state court system is what makes up the dual court system of the U.S. Today the U.S. court system is what it is today because of previous legal codes, common law, and the precedent it played in the past. Making the U.S. court system a vital role in the criminal justice system..

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

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

President John Adams had made many federal appointments. He did this at the very end of his term. One of the appointments was William Marbury. Thomas Jefferson, refused to recognize the appointment of Marbury. The normal practice of making such appointments was to deliver a "commission," or notice, of appointment. This was normally done by the Secretary of State. Jefferson's Secretary of State at the time was James Madison. Madison refused to deliver Marbury's commission. Marbury sued Madison. This led Supreme Court to take the case. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that the Judiciary Act of 1789. This act spelled out the practice of delivering commissions for judges and justices of the peace. This was unconstitutional because it the gave

In the extremely bitter presidential election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson ousted John Adams after only one term. In his final days as President, however, Adams appointed several new judicial officers. Shortly afterward, when Jefferson took over as President, he blocked the appointees from assuming office by refusing to deliver the necessary commissions to those who had not yet received them. William Marbury, one of the appointees who did not receive his commission, took his case directly to the Supreme Court. Remarkably, the member of the Administration responsible for delivering the commissions to Marbury and the other appointees was the new Secretary of State – none other than James Madison. Ultimately, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in 1803, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, that although the Jefferson Administration’s decision to withhold the commissions was not legal, the Court had no jurisdiction over the matter because the federal legislation allowing Marbury take his case directly to the Supreme Court (the Judiciary Act of 1789) was itself

James Madison, Jefferson’s secretary of state, discharged those positions. Marbury then tried to sue Madison on the Judiciary act of 1789. This act says that the supreme court has the power to review any cases that involve a government official. John Marshall the chief Justice ruled that the Judiciary act was unconstitutional. John Marshall stated that the court’s power came from the court and not the congress.

In the weeks after John Adams lost his bid for re-election to Thomas Jefferson in 1800, the Federalist Congress increased the number of circuit courts. Adams placed Federalist judges in these new positions. One of the justices of the peace, William Marbury, filed a writ of mandamus demanding Secretary of State James Madison deliver the appointments. The Supreme Court led by John Marshall denied the request citing part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 as unconstitutional. This historic court case established the concept of Judicial Review or the ability of the Judiciary Branch to declare a law unconstitutional. This case brought the Judicial Branch of the government

Commissions were sent out to the last minute judges were delivered. When Jefferson became president he told Madison not to send the rest. One of the commissions was William Marbury’s. Marbury took his case to the Supreme Court to force the delivery of his commission. John Marshall, Chief of Justice, turned down Marbury’s claim. Marshall said that the Constitution did not give the Court jurisdiction to decide his decision.

On Febuary 24, 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall made a ruling that would shape the United States for the rest of its life. In the case it was Marbury v. Madison, they ruled in favor of Madison, because they believed that it was not in their jurisdiction. With that being said John Marshall created "Judicial Review" that gave the Supreme Court the power to decide if a law is un-constitutional. On the other hand Thomas Jefferson believed that if anybody had the right to determined what was un-constitutional or not it should belong in the hands of Congress. I believe congress has the right to decide what is constitutional because, the people elect the congress, all members of congress serves terms, and the congress has greater numbers then the

The power of judicial review is certainly a power that should not be taken for granted, though it seems over the past few decades it has. Without judicial review, other branches of the government would likely have performed acts that would be deemed unconstitutional. Jefferson did not wish for federalists to continue holding judgeships, or new ones to come forth for that matter, and ordered Madison to withhold these commissions. Thus, Marbury, one of the would-be appointees, sued leading to the case of Marbury v. Madison. The case of Marbury v. Madison provided a clearer picture as to why such a power as judicial review be set in place. Marshall saw this as an opportunity for growth in regards to the power of the Court as well as to interpret

Chief Justice Marshall then looked into the matter and found that in the Judiciary Act of 1789 it discusses the writ of mandamus. The writ of mandamus is a mandate given to a higher executive power by the Supreme Court that states a demand that the Supreme Court deems necessary. The writ of mandamus in this case stated that Marbury deserves the position of Justice of the Peace. However, this was later considered unconstitutional because the writ of mandamus was a part of an expansion of the constitution created by Congress, so it should not be treated as a part of the constitution. Marshall then decides that the Supreme Court needs a new way of handling cases similar to this, so he creates Judicial Review in order to give the Supreme Court the right to decide whether something is unconstitutional or

case can go t the Supreme Court.This paper will also identify the merits of a case that can lead to