Marbury Selection Case Study

In the court case of Marbury v Madison from 1803, it is apparent that justice does not prevail. This case was brought to court because William Marbury was denied his rightful spot to a justice of the peace position in the District of Colombia. This spot and commissions were signed by the authority figure, President Adams and sealed by the acting Secretary of State at the time, John Marshall. Although both of these actions were taken, the signatures were not delivered before the expiration of Adams’s term as president.

Madison is a landmark Supreme Court case. Marbury v. Madison is one of the most influential and groundbreaking legal proceeding in the history of the United States. The Marbury v. Madison case was the first of its kind. Prior to Marbury vs. Madison, it was unclear whether the U.S. Supreme Court had the power to determine the constitutionality of laws or what should happen when the Constitution and a law were in conflict. “Consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.” With these words written by Chief Justice Marshall, this case is significant because for the first time, the Supreme Court declared an act of Congress unconstitutional because it was contrary to the Constitution. This decision was the foundation for the Supreme Court's power of "judicial review," the power by which the Court could determine the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. Marshall stated in the majority opinion “Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.” Marshall is saying that the Judicial has the decision on the two opposing laws and thus creating Judicial Review. Nothing in the Constitution gave the Court this specific power. Marshall, however, believed that the

as being the first case to protect students ' First Amendment rights at school. By ruling that it was

In Marbury v. Madison, he led the Court in striking down an act of Congress that was in conflict with the Constitution, legitimizing the doctrine of judicial review. Over the course of his thirty-four year term, Marshall oversaw numerous landmark cases, his decisions in which played an undeniably critical role in the early development of American law. Thanks to his firm hand and consistent principles, he was able to secure the institutional power of the Supreme Court in the face of staunch Jeffersonian opposition—affirming its place as an equal among the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

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.

To conclude, the Marbury v. Madison case has greatly impacted the way the Supreme Court makes decisions. Marbury v. Madison had incorporated the process of Judicial review, which allows courts to review the laws to see if they are being violated. Judicial review was utilized in countless cases, such as, Cohens v. Virginia, Ladue v. Gilleo, and McCulloch v. Maryland. To this day, the Supreme Court has utilized the Marbury v. Madison decision as a model for future

Throughout the history of the Supreme Court, there have been numerous notable court cases. However, none of these would have been possible without Maybury v. Madison. It occurred in 1803, when John Adams decided to appoint several justices at the last minute. Not all of these letters were delivered, and one of the judges, Maybury decided to sue Madison. Madison won, and this court case creates Judicial Review.

The case of Marbury vs. Madison established judicial review of acts of Congress to determine if they are unconstitutional. It was so epochal because had it not established judicial review, Congress would be free to pass laws that are completely unconstitutional and a violation of the rights set in place by the first ten amendments. It brought order out of the chaos that occurred when Adams appointed the Midnight Judges. Over the long term, it has affected many congressional bills that if passed, would not be constitutional.

In 1800, the Era of Federalist powers over the government finally changed hands to the Democratic-Republicans. Thomas Jefferson’s election in 1800 signaled the rise of the Republican party, and the soon to be demise of the Federalist party, with many judiciary conflicts to come between. The Judiciary Act of 1801 was an important point of conflict between the Federalists and republicans during the 19th century, causing heightened tension during the change of party hands, and ultimately leading to the establishment of judiciary review. On his very last day of presidency, John Adams commissioned 16 new Federalist judges (also called midnight judges in reference to his last-minute timing) to balance the incoming influx of Republican power in congress.

The final ruling on the case was that Scott was denied his freedom. The court based their decision on the fact that the constitution did not give any rights and that black people were not citizens of the U.S. Without a doubt there was outrage among the black communities in the North, and everywhere else. Blacks in the North started meeting in conventions and gathering discussing how unjust the ruling was and how outraged they were over the decision. The court's ruling came as a "victory" for southerners, because it showed slaves that the road to freedom would not come as easy as a court case.

James Madison was in charge of delivering these papers, so Marbury sued Madison in the Supreme court

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

President John Adams had appointed William Marbury as Justice of the Peace, in the District of Columbia. However, new Secretary of State, James Madison, would not deliver the documents. William Marbury wanted the Supreme Court to force James Madison to bring the papers, but the Supreme Court declined the petition. They did this because the Judiciary Act of 1789 said that people could bring cases to the Supreme Court, but it was inconsistent with the Constitution.

If Marshall’s actions were iconic, then after the Marbury v. Madison case, he would have been credited with the creation of judicial review. In reality, Marshall’s decision of allowing the courts to review the decisions of the legislative and executive branches was seen “as only a step in the continuous clarification of the theory of judicial function”(Clinton 117). So this supposed creator of a pivotal Judicial component was only seen as a stepping stone. Through the remainder of Marshall’s career as Chief Justice, no one revisited his thoughts on the Marbury v. Madison case, until his successor, Roger Taney, did in Dred Scott v. Sanford. Roger Taney seemed to have the same viewpoints as Marshall, always trying to keep the checks and balances intact and equal. He kept this dedication through the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, using judicial review to rule the Missouri Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional. Strangely, “Marbury’s importance as a precedent for judicial review of legislation was never mentioned by the Court”(Clinton 119). If Marbury v. Madison was such a pivotal case, then it would

The Court’s final decision was unanimous and it denied Marbury’s request for the writ of mandamus. Marbury never received his appointment. This case is significant because it established the concept of judicial review. The Constitution does not specifically grant the judiciary this power. Judicial review allows federal courts to review laws and determine if they are constitutional or not. This gives the judiciary the power to void any laws that are found to violate any part of the Constitution. Therefore, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the federal courts the authority to hear mandamus cases was unconstitutional. Ironically, Chief Justice Marshall is the person who was the Secretary of State under Adams that sealed Marbury’s appointment.