Essay about constitutional law

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 However, through complex political maneuvering the Judiciary Act of 1802, was enacted which repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 reestablishing the Judiciary Act of 1789 and postponing the case until 1803.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

1) Since the injured plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt, why is Ford being sued for failing to test the seatbelt sleeve?

In general, a writ of mandamus can be described as an order, “commanding the performance of an act that the law requires as a clearly defined duty, arising from an office, trust, or station.” 55 C.J.S. Mandamus § 1. Moreover, a writ of mandamus may be issued to command a nongovernmental body, such as a medical licensing board, to perform a specified duty imposed by law, and can also be invoked to control flagrant abuses of discretion. Id. For example, in some instances, upon judicial review, if a court is satisfied that the applicant is entitled to a license, it may order the license issued notwithstanding the boards denial of the license. 70 C.J.S. Physicians and Surgeons § 38.

Marbury v. Madison, one of the first Supreme Court cases asserting the power of judicial review, is an effective argument for this power; however, it lacks direct textual basis for the decision. John Marshall managed to get away with this deficiency because of the silence on many issues and the vague wording of the Constitution. Marshall was also the first to interpret the

From the beginning, the United States Constitution has guaranteed the American people civil liberties. These liberties have given citizens rights to speak, believe, and act freely. The Constitution grants citizens the courage to express their mind about something they believe is immoral or unjust. The question is, how far are citizens willing to extend the meanings of these liberties? Some people believe that American citizens take advantage of their civil liberties, harming those around them. On the contrary, many other people feel that civil liberties are necessary tools to fight for their Constitutional rights.

In the early years of the eighteenth Century, the young United States of America were slowly adapting to the union and the way the country was governed. And just like the country, the governmental powers were starting to develop. Since the creation of the Constitution and due to the Connecticut Compromise, there is the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial Power. But the existence of those powers was not always that naturally. In these crucial times, the Judicial Power had problems controlling the other powers. It was a challenge for the Supreme Court to exercise the powers granted by the new Constitution. Federal Government was not generally appreciated and

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 Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

1) Why does Kennedy refer to the case of Marbury vs. Madison as “epochal?” Describe the short and long-term ramifications to the decision.

In this case, Chief Justice Roberts determines the role of the Court in his opinion. Roberts argues that the point of the Court is not to say whether a law is good or bad, if the people do not like the bill, it is their fault. Roberts says, “the responsibility of this Court is to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down the acts of Congress that transgress those limits” (Roberts, pg 6). He also says, “we must determine whether the Constitution grants Congress powers it now asserts, but which many States and individuals believe it does not possess” (Roberts, pg 2). To do so, the Court must examine the limits on the Government’s power and their own limited role in “policing those boundaries” (2). In this case, Roberts says the Court must uphold its constitutionality and the fundamental will of the people.

The writ of certiorari is an order to a lower court to deliver the records of a particular case to be reviewed for legal errors. The support of four justices is needed for certiorari and few cases ever satisfy this requirement. The Supreme Court’s decision to accept a case is a very lengthy and complex process. A brief is used to explain why the Courts should rule in favor of their client. This brief contains facts about the case and presents evidence to the Supreme Court to affirm the lower court’s verdict. The next stage involved in a case is an oral argument, in which each attorney presents their positions and answers the justice questions. It is very important to the outcome of a case and allows the justices to better understand the heart of the case. Following the oral argument, the courts discuss the case through conferences. In the book, it says “the Court discusses the cases on Wednesday or Fridays” (263). After a decision has been reached, the majority is assigned to a write opinion. The assignment of the opinion can really make a huge impact on the interpretation of a

This case was brought up by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the US for the district of Missouri.

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

It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create that case. Although, therefore, a mandamus may be directed to courts, yet to issue such a writ to an officer for the delivery of a paper is, in effect, the same as to sustain an original

The legal Power is qualified for all natives Cases, in Law and Value, emerging under this Constitution, the Laws of the Unified States, and Arrangements made, or which should be made, under their Power; to all Cases influencing Represetatives, other open Pastors and Representatives; to all Instances of chief of naval operations' office and oceanic Purview; to Debates to which the Assembled States might be a Gathering; to Discussions between at least two States; between a State and Residents of another State; between Nationals of various States; between Nationals of a similar State guaranteeing Terrains under Gifts of various States, and between a State, or the Subjects thereof, and outside States, Natives or Subjects."The locale of the