The Supreme Court In William Marbury's 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 However, through complex political maneuvering the Judiciary Act of 1802, was enacted which repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 reestablishing the Judiciary Act of 1789 and postponing the case until 1803.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

Laws are enforced to provide our society with safety, boundaries, protection of rights, and overall justice. The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights were established years ago to reduce the tensions and conflicts of our newly founded nation. It sought out to accomplish this by providing justice through an equal voice for all citizens. However, this equal voice for justice more often times than not is squandered and diminished. Things such as race, religion, and culture often times blur the lines of the law and fair outcomes in a court. Individuals feel that their beliefs are more important than the protection of rights and the deliverance of law or the law itself cannot go outside of its limitations to provide justice. This is apparent in the court cases of Marbury v Madison, Plessy v Ferguson, and the book To Kill a Mocking Bird by Harper Lee. These cases clearly exemplify that the law does not always provide justice, although it endeavors to do so.

In the text Justice Marshall explains his idea on a larger scale the futility and absurdity in continuation legislative acts that contradict the constitution. Not only would this practice make the general purpose of a written

He concludes that a written constitution is created with the purpose of being the fundamental, most important law of a state. So all other laws are inferior and thus every law that is not in accordance with the constitution must be abolished. The Supreme Court of the United States can declare that certain legislative acts are not in line with their Constitution, these acts are then deemed unconstitutional and they do not have to be followed, this is called judicial

Basically, this 1819 court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice Marshall argues that if the Constitution accounted for every single power for every position, the common people would not have understood it because it would have been too large and the meaning would have been lost in transition. In addition, the Constitution, according to Marshall should be like a “great outline”, where small powers are given to the President, and that these outlines should have the important

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 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.

Before John Adams left office he appointed Marbury as a justice. When jefferson took office he told his secretary of state ,James Madison, to discharge Marbury and other federalist positions that John Adams assigned. Jefferson let some federalist to keep their positions if they didn’t use their power in the wrong way.

Madison was incredibly important to the future of our government because it allowed the Supreme Court to become its own political and constitutional branch of the government. The Supreme Court case set precedence for judicial review which is still used within the court today. The power to review federal legislation was a landmark decision and it has severed its purpose within our federal government for over 200 years. John Marshall’s decision allowed the Republican and Federalist party to proceed without gaining too much political control. The decision also served as another check which balances our federal government to ensure that there is no collaboration within different branches to proceed with federal legislation that would violate the rights of individuals in the United States. Without the power of judicial review, many landmark cases may have ended with a different result. The Supreme Court has used judicial review to rule that the United States government has certain implied powers under the Constitution, it has also ruled that police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning, and that separate schools are not equal. Many of the cases that the Supreme Court has ruled on using judicial review have been landmark cases that have advocated for the rights of individuals and institutions under the laws of the constitution. It has also ruled that the President of the United States is not above the law. Without the

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

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.

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 case of Marbury v. Madison centers on a case brought before the Supreme Court by William Marbury. Shortly after Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the election of 1800, Congress increased the number of circuit courts. Adams sought to fill these new vacancies with people who had Federalist backgrounds. To accomplish this, he used the powers granted under the Organic Act to issue appointments to 42 justices of the peace and 16 circuit court justices for the District of Columbia. Adams signed the appointments on his last day in office and they were subsequently sealed by Secretary of State John Marshall. However, many of the appointments were not delivered before Adams left office and Jefferson ordered the deliveries stopped

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