Marbury V Madison Essay
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U. S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)1.FactsMarbury was appointed as a justice by former President John Adams in the end of Adams term. However, new President Thomas Jefferson refused to deliver the late commission. Marbury then, on the basis of the Judiciary Act of 1789, asked the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus obligating Madison, the Secretary of State, to deliver the commission.
2.HoldingsMarbury has a right to the commission, but Supreme Court cant afford him legal remedies, since the Judiciary Act of 1789 , on which he base his claim, is unconstitutional.
3. Reasoning1.Marbury has a right to the office. Because, (a)When former President signed the commissions, the appointment has already been made, conferring on Marbury a right to the office.(b)This kind of appointment is not revocable at the executives discretion.
2.Marbury should be afforded legal remedies. Because, (a)The essence of a legal right consists in a claim to legal protections when it is injured.(b)The issue in question concerns whether Marbury has a legal right. It is not a political question which is only politically examinable.
3.The writ of mandamus is a proper remedy for Maidson, if this court can issue this kind of writ. Because, (a)The court which issues a writ of mandamus only requests the performance of a legal duty. And this doesnt constitute an intrusion on executive power.
4.The Superme Court cant issue the writ of mandamus according to the Constitution, however. Because,(a)The Article Ⅲ of the Constitution only assignsappellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, except from cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party.(b)The Judiciary Act of 1789 which authorizes the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus in effect empowers the Supreme Court to exercise original jurisdiction in these cases. Yet this act is unconstitutional, since the Constitution already enumerates the distribution of jurisdiction among courts, implying the legislature has no power to redistribute it.
5.Laws conflicting with the constitution are void. Because, (a)One of the aims of a constitution is to limit governmental powers. And if unconstitutional laws are to be valid, then the constitution cant in effect limit legislative power, making its aim unattainable. (b)If unconstitutional laws are to be valid, then the constitution is like ordinary acts, all alterable at the will of the legislature. And this is contrary to the nature of a constitution : a fundamental law...
Loading: Checking Spelling0%
Marbury v. Madison Analysis647 words - 3 pages Untitled Madison or Marbury: A Judicial Dilemma By, Robert Y....
Marbury v. Madison: It's Role in American History and It's Long-Term and Short-Term Ramifications768 words - 3 pages The case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) has been described as "epochal", and for good reason. The case of Marbury v. Madison established the Supreme Court's power of judicial review. Judicial review is the ability of the Supreme Court to "review a law or an official act of government employee or agent for constitutionality or for the violation of basic principles of justice." This case directly shaped the future of the American public in a...
James Madison: What made him a great president838 words - 3 pages Celina CarvalhoUS History IMarch 3, 2010Period 6With James Madison's sharp mind and great leadership skills he contributed his knowledge to America to help it become the great country it is today. James Madison became an accomplished man from his devoted educational background and wonderful family. Madison was serious about his political views and provided his thoughts and ideas for the good of the government. Prior...
Marbury Vs. Madison823 words - 3 pages Marbury v. Madison is a landmark case in United States law, the basis for the exercise of judicial review of Federal statutes by the United States Supreme Court as a constitutional power. The Court ruled that it had the power to declare void a statute which it considered revolting to the United States Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall presided over...
Short summaries on select important Supreme Court Cases595 words - 2 pages Court Decisions1)Marbury v. Madison (1803) - On the last day of his presidency, President Adams appointed William Marbury as the justice of peace for the District of Columbia. However, the new secretary of state, James Madison, chose to shelf Marbury's commission. Marbury sued Madison for its delivery. In this case, Chief Justice Marshall knew that it would...
John Marshall and the Supreme Court843 words - 3 pages Chief Justice John Marshall made the Supreme Court what it is today with the help of the case of Marbury vs. Madison. He wrote the decision for "the most monumental case ever decided by any court in any country" (Glennon). Judicial review, and Chief Justice John Marshall, earned the Supreme Court the respect and prestige it carries today. ...
Is the Judiciary Branch a despotic branch?953 words - 4 pages John Marshall decided a case that increased the power of the Supreme Court. The case involved William Marbury, a judge appointed by Adams on his last night as President. Republicans refused to accept this "midnight judge" and Jefferson ordered the Secretary of State James, Madison, not to deliver the papers confirming Marbury's appointment. Marbury sued Madison it was referred as Marbury v. Madison. The Supreme Court ruled against Marbury but...
The Marshall Court1726 words - 7 pages The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of...
Marbury Vs. Madison1413 words - 6 pages This case had been brought upon the Supreme Court because of the election of 1800. The republicans had once again elected Thomas Jefferson as president of the United States in 1800. They had elected Aaron Burr as Vice President, because he had helped to build New York into a strong republican state.President John Adams and Charles C. Pinckney were both from S. Carolina and federalist candidates. The federalists had been campaigning...
The constitution.690 words - 3 pages Mr. McKiernan has on occasion reminded us, "The constitution has adapted to changing circumstances over the years because of certain provisions built into it". This is true and necessary. As need arises, the constitution has had to mold itself to the ever altering society we embrace. As times change, flexibility becomes a must, and that's why the elastic clause, the amendment process, and judicial review are in effect.
AP United States History Free Response777 words - 3 pages While the generalization of Republican's as strict constructionists and the Federalist's as loose ones holds some truth to it, the beginning of the nineteenth century saw to a change in the economy, constitutional interpretation and judicial decisions of both parties. From 1801 until 1817 the Jeffersonian Republicans slowly converged with Federalist ideals and the Federalist's, over the course of Madison's presidency, became more and more...
Essay/Term paper: Marbury v. madison
Essay, term paper, research paper: Sociology Essays
See all college papers and term papers on Sociology Essays
Need a different (custom) essay on Sociology Essays? Buy a custom essay on Sociology Essays
Need a custom research paper on Sociology Essays? Click here to buy a custom term paper.
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. Marshall
managed to get away with this deficiency because of the silence on many
issues and the vague wording of the Constitution. During the early
testing period when few precedents existed, there was much debate about
fundamental issues concerning what was intended by the words of the
Constitution and which part of government should have the final word in
defining the meaning of these words. Marshall used the Marbury case to
establish the Supreme Court's place as the final judge.
Marshall identified three major questions that needed to be answered
before the Court could rule on the Marbury v. Madison case. The first of
these was, "Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?" The
Constitution allows that "the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment
of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President
alone, . . . " (Art. II, § 2). The Judiciary Act of 1793 had given the
President the right to appoint federal judges and justices of the
peace; there is no dispute that such an appointment was within the scope
of the president's powers. Debate arises because the Constitution is
silent on the exact time at which the appointment is considered
complete. The Supreme Court ruled that "when a commission has been
signed by the president, the appointment is made; and that the
commission is complete, when the seal of the United States has been
affixed to it by the [secretary of state]." This ruling does not have
direct constitutional support, but it is not an unreasonable decision.
The second question which Marshall addressed was, "If [Marbury] has a
right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of this country
afford him a remedy?" The answer is logically yes although there are no
specific words in the Constitution to support such an answer. Based on
the type of government intended by the Constitution, the government is
expected to protect individual liberty. As Marshall says, "[The
government] will certainly cease to deserve [to be termed a government
of laws, and not of men] if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation
of a vested right." However, with this assertion Marshall established
the power of the Supreme Court to review actions of the executive branch
- a power that does not stem directly from the Constitution.
The third and final question which Marshall addressed was whether
Marbury "is entitled to the remedy for which he applies." Marshall
further divides this question into two parts: the nature of the writ and
the power of the Supreme Court. In examining the nature of the writ,
Marshall solidifies further the Supreme Court authority over members of
the executive branch. Marshall admits that "the officer to whom [the
writ] is to be directed, must be one to whom, on legal principles, such
writ may be directed . . . " and that the Supreme Court cannot "enquire
how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they
have discretion." Yet Marshall insists that the Supreme Court can issue
a mandamus "[where the head of a department] is directed by law to do a
certain act affecting the absolute rights of individuals." This
assertion does not have Constitutional basis. The Constitution does not
expressly grant the Supreme Court power over either of the other
branches of government.
Finally Marshall gets to the question based on which he decides the
case - the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over this case. For the first
time in this case, Marshall uses direct constitutional basis to make his
ruling. He argues that,
"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, it would certainly
have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the
judicial power . . . The plain import of the words seems to be, that
in one class of cases its jurisdiction is original and not appellate; in
the other it is appellate, and not original."
He bases this ruling on Art. III § 2, which enumerates the cases in
which the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. Marshall
further maintains that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
In this contention as well Marshall has constitutional basis in Art. VI,
which states, "This constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; ... shall be the supreme Law
of the Land."
In his typical style, Marshall follows this constitutionally based
statement with one of the most controversial rulings, which has no
constitutional basis. He asserts, "It is emphatically the province and
duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." There is
nothing in the Constitution that assigns the duty of review solely to
the judicial department.
Although his decision loosely construes and even stretches the meaning
of the Constitution, Marshall's ruling on this case overall is not
detrimental to the well-being of the American people. The Supreme Court
is the only branch of government that could act to strengthen the
national government during the early history of the Constitution.
Clearly, Congress could not take on the states' rights advocates and the
state legislatures. If an early Congress had passed a law which a state
government objected to, the state legislature might have simply
nullified the law, thus forcing the national government into a
precarious situation. Congress would have to risk causing the state to
leave the Union to force them to comply with the new law. Furthermore,
the president also was not in a position to allow the federal government
more leeway in interpreting their powers. He does not make any laws of
his own and has no power to settle any questions of the states. Clearly,
the Supreme Court was the branch that could most easily facilitate the
strengthening of the national government into an effective and unified
nation rather than thirteen independent countries as the states had
seemed under the Articles of Confederation.
Critics will protest that the people do not elect the Supreme Court
Justices and therefore the Supreme Court should not have the power of
judicial review. As McCloskey points out, "No institution in a
democratic society could become and remain potent unless it could count
on a solid block of public opinion that would rally to it's side in a
pinch." Clearly, the Supreme Court is ultimately responsible to the will
of the people. By maintaining independence from politics, the Justices
avoid the major problems of political parties and party platforms.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court's small size allows the Constitution to
speak with a unified voice throughout the country.
Other sample model essays:
Alcohol and Drugs / Marijuana (Mary Jane)
Throughout history marijuana has been used to serve various purposes in many different cultures. The purposes have changed over time to fit in with the current lifestyles. This pattern is also ...
Alcohol and Drugs / Marijuana Laws
The Question we must ask ourselves is Why is a drug that has so many beneficial uses illegal? Is it because it leads to Harder drugs, the health problems, the addictiveness, the short-term mem...
Sociology Essays / Marriage
Marriage Relationships In marriage realtionships we expected to learn a number of things including the comprimises couple must make with respect to such things as careers, finances, and children. Our ...
Sociology Essays / Marriage Asylum
It is my belief that the institution of marriage is a sham, designed by pious Christain fanatics in order to subjugate, control, and furthermore oppress a woman's personal liberties, intellectual free...
Sociology Essays / Math
How the Renaissance had an effect on western Europe By: Patrick Bryant E-mail: Pbryant98@hotmail.com The Renaissance was significant on the developm...
Sociology Essays / Media Censorship
Media Censorship Today there is much controversy over whether there should or shouldn"t be censorship of the media. Censorship should not be imposed on citizens by the government or other agencies;...
Domestic Abuse / Media Violence
Violence The world today has a variety of problems. Violence is around the top of the list. Everywhere you go that is all you here. It is seen on the front page of the newspaper and as ...
Domestic Abuse / Media Violence Etc.
Does the entertainment media reflect the standards of the American people, or does the entertainment media define the standards of the American people? This question is difficult to answer because ...
Sociology Essays / Medicare
The Medicare DebateEssay submitted by Unknown The U.S. government have denied that Medicare has been going bankrupt. Although the government may say that Medicare has plenty of money it is untrue beca...
Sociology Essays / Minimum Wage
The Minimum Wage and Why We Should Leave it Alone When was the last time a "value" meal from McDonald, let alone any other fast food chain, did not cost five dollars or more? When was the la...