Marbury Vs Madison Resureme Case

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 However, through complex political maneuvering the Judiciary Act of 1802, was enacted which repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 reestablishing the Judiciary Act of 1789 and postponing the case until 1803.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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

On February 24, 1803 Chief Justice John Marshall and the rest of the Supreme Court decided on the seemingly insignificant case of Marbury v. Madison. While ruling the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, Judicial Review was established. Granting the Supreme Court the power to rule acts of the Legislative and/or Executive Branch of government unconstitutional, hence serving as a landmark case that further legitimatized the Judicial Branch as a separate, but balanced branch of government. Marbury v. Madison has been used as a very important precedent throughout our history with 165 acts of Congress deemed unconstitutional as of 2010.

John Adams, on the last day of his term, appointed forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices under the Organic Act, which was an attempt by the Federalists to take over the judicial branch before Thomas Jefferson took the office. The commissions were not delivered before the end of Adam’s term, so Thomas Jefferson claimed they were invalid and did not honor them. William Marbury was one of the appointed justices of the peace and appealed directly to the Supreme Court when he was denied his position. Due to the Judiciary Act of 1789, Marbury wanted the Supreme Court to make James Madison (Secretary of State) deliver the commissions.

The case Marbury vs. Madison led to the most important decision the US Supreme Court has ever made. The parties, William Marbury, appointed Justice of Peace under the Judiciary Act of 1801 by John Adams the former US president, and James Madison, Thomas Jefferson’s Secretary of State at the time, had conflicting interests concerning William Marbury’s right to office. Madison refused to grant Marbury his appointment. This led to Marbury ordering the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus, obliging Marbury to grant his commission. Marbury’s main argument was that the Judiciary Act of 1789 granted the power to issue former to the Supreme Court. By refusing the appointment, Marbury claims, is Madison violating his legal rights to obtain the commission. The Court’s ruling in this case, delivered by Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803, had an important impact on the establishment of judicial review. But was the Court’s decision justified?

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

5. No. The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus.