Marbury Vs Madison Case Brief

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 However, through complex political maneuvering the Judiciary Act of 1802, was enacted which repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 reestablishing the Judiciary Act of 1789 and postponing the case until 1803.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

The Supreme Court often oversteps its perceived legal sovereignty when using judicial review. Article III of the Constitution solely vests the courts the “judicial power of the United States” never mentioning the power of judicial review. The judiciary’s duty, according to the law of the land, is “to interpret the laws, not scan the authority of the lawgiver” (Gibson, J.). The judiciary has not followed a strict interpretation of the constitution; rather, it has encroached on the power of the legislative branch and the sanctity of the separation of powers. If the Constitution “were to come into collision with an act of the legislature” (Gibson, J.), the Constitution would take precedent, but it is

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.

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

When Chief Justice Marshall first established the important principle of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison, his goal was to give the judicial branch a safeguard by expanding the Court’s power and legitimizing the weakest branch of

Marshall believed that congress could not give the supreme court the power to give Marbury his commission and that the Constitution only could. Furthermore the document said nothing about the Supreme Court having the power to issue such an order, thus making the Supreme Court not being able to force Jefferson and Madison to appoint Marbury as Peace of Justice. While Marbury never became a justice of peace, the court’s ruling in Marbury V Madison was a very important Precedent.( A legal decision that serves as an example in later court cases.) This eventually created the Judicial review which gave the court the right to review acts of congress and the action of the president. If the Court saw the law as unconstitutional, they could overrule the law. However at the end Marshall ended says that the Supreme Court has the final say on

The decision really helped decide the border between the constitutionally executive and judicial branches of the American government. The case had resulted into a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury. Marbury also petitioned the Supreme Court to strengthen the new Secretary of State in order to deliver the documents. The Court had found that Madison's refusal to deliver the agency was both illegal and fixable. The petition later on in the year was refused.

Established in 1789, the Supreme Court was created to interpret the meaning of the Constitution and to use that interpretation to declare any actions of the Legislative or Executive Branches unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court was capable of also acquiring more functions as evidence of the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). The case dealt with President John Adams appointing sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Colombia. Adams appointed these justices so that his political party would have more justices than the rival party. Problematically, the appointment letters were not delivered by the end of his term. By that basis, President Thomas Jefferson annulled the appointments because he retained the right to appoint the justices during his time of jurisdiction. Consequently, this aggravated the appointed justice and therefore one of the justices named William Marbury filed a case in the Supreme Court over the commissions that they were promised (Goldstone). The Court ruled that Marbury did have a right to commission and also with it made a statement that enacted the doctrine of Judicial Review. This meant that the court had the "right to review, and possibly nullify, laws and governmental acts that violate the constitution. Judicial Review is a means of assuring that politicians and various other leaders adhere to the constitution and do not use powers granted to them by

In a letter, Thomas Jefferson says, “When the legislative or executive junctionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity.” John Marshall created the precedent that makes Jefferson’s statement true. Marbury v. Madison is one of the most important cases he dealt with because John Marshall established Judicial Review. The case was centered around James Madison’s refusal to grant William Marbury a writ of mandamus as he was the new Justice of the Peace by President John Adams. Upon the refusal from Madison, Marbury went to the Supreme Court where John Marshall used judicial review ruling that what Congress had done was unconstitutional; however, that the Supreme Court could not issue the writ of mandamus. Chief Marshall directly asserted the role of the Supreme Court in his Marbury v. Madison court decision, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marshall asserted and justified the power of the Supreme Court in another case being Cohens v. Virginia. In the decision of this case Marshall stated that the Federal Supreme Court, “…is authorized to decide all cases of every description arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.” The most important aspect of this case was that it gave the Supreme Court the power to review any state Supreme

The decision of William Marbury (P) v. James Madison (D) recognized the USSC power to define whether a law passed by Congress was constitutional (Judicial Review). Prior to this case, it was clear that laws conflicting with the Constitution were not valid, but only because the Judiciary branch of government had not been established.

Despite Jefferson’s wishes, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall, a Federalist and Adams appointee, increased its power during his administration. In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Marshall Court established the right of the Supreme Court to determine whether an act of Congress violates the Constitution—the power known as “judicial review.” The Marshall Court also soon established the right of the nation’s highest court to determine the constitutionality of state laws.

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.

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

The Constitution states that “the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, this section is mere surplusage and is entirely without meaning. If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance.