The Court Case of Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review

866 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: short note on marbury vs. madison

The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford. John Adams, the previous Federalist president, lost the Election of 1800 to Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican. Before Jefferson took office, Adams decided to appoint as many Federalists into the Supreme court as he could, including William Marbury, all of whom needed to be commissioned in order to be officially sworn in. However, Jefferson took office before the commissions could be handed out, and he ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison, to not deliver the commissions. Marbury proceeded to ask Marshall for a writ of mandamus (found in Section 13 of the Judiciary Act), forcing Madison to issue the commissions. This dispute between Marbury and Madison sparks the famous case. The dilemma here is the differences in interpretation. Some viewed Section 13 as unconstitutional, as it added power to the Judicial Branch, disrupting checks and balances. Others saw that “Marbury had been duly appointed…[and] the writ of mandamus [was] to be an appropriate legal remedy for resolving Marbury’s dilemma”(Clinton 86). Marshall wanted to issue the... ... middle of paper ... ...n and scrutiny to judicial review. It can be inferred that if in the present, judicial review was seen as unconstitutional, then one might view Gibson’s oppositions as one views Marbury v. Madison now. Marbury v. Madison is given credit for creating the concept of judicial review, even though historical evidence proves otherwise. Also, John Marshall, the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was never really given credit for his contributions, even if they were not unprecedented. As for the book, “Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review” by: Robert Lowry Clinton, I found this book unenjoyable since it is a topic I have little interest in. Also, the book was very hard to read, with the topics kind of scattered and not chronological. Works Cited Clinton, Robert Lowry. Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review. Lawrence, Kan.: University of Kansas, 1989. Print.

Show More
Related

  • Gibbons V. Ogden (1824)

    969 Words  | 2 Pages

    In America’s time there have been many great men who have spent their lives creating this great country. Men such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson fit these roles. They are deemed America’s “founding fathers” and laid the support for the most powerful country in history. However, one more man deserves his name to be etched into this list. His name was John Marshall, who decided case after case during his role as Chief Justice that has left an everlasting mark on today’s judiciary, and even society itself. Through Cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he established the Judicial Branch as an independent power. One case in particular, named Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), displayed his intuitive ability to maintain a balance of power, suppress rising sectionalism, and unite the states under the Federal Government.

    Read More

  • John Marshall's Effect on the American Judicial System

    1672 Words  | 4 Pages

    The purpose of this paper is to discuss how Chief Justice John Marshall affected the American Judicial System. The reader will therefore first find a brief biography of John Marshall. Then the paper will explain in detail the origins of the Judicial Power to subsequently...

    Read More

  • Judicial Review: Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton

    1059 Words  | 3 Pages

    In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Judicial Branch is the “least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution" and that it is “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” since it has “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” [*] While it is true that Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers as propaganda to garner support for the Constitution by convincing New Yorkers that it would not take away their rights and liberties, it is also true that Article III of the Constitution was deliberately vague about the powers of the Judicial Branch to allow future generations to decide what exactly those powers should be. In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, established the Court’s power of judicial review. However, as Jill Lepore, Harvard professor of American History, argued, “This was such an astonishing thing to do that the Court didn’t declare another federal law unconstitutional for fifty-four years” after declaring the Judicial Act of 1789 unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison. [*Jill Lepore] Alexander Hamilton was incorrect in his assertion that the Judicial Branch is the least dangerous to political rights and the weakest of the three government branches because judicial review has made the Supreme Court more powerful than he had anticipated. From 1803 to today, the controversial practice of judicial activism in the Supreme Court has grown—as exemplified by the differing decisions in Minor v. Happersett and United States v. Virginia—which, in effect, has increased the power of the Supreme Court to boundaries beyond those that Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist 78.

    Read More

  • Marbury Vs. Madison Cases In History Of The Supreme Court Case

    1117 Words  | 3 Pages

    Accordingly, Chief Justice Marshall ruled that Marbury and the others received appointments via the appropriate procedures governed by law, thus had the justification to a writ, as well as, the fact that the law needed to accord a solution to the dilemma. Furthermore, Marshall maintained the courts were responsible to ensure individual rights even if they were contrary to presidential design. As to the Supreme Courts authority to issue such a writ per the Constitution, Marshall ruled that the Constitution addresses this issue in Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which grants the right to do so, but this one was unconstitutional because it did not involve a case of original jurisdiction, thus would be invalid (LAWNIX, n.d.). Hence, the Supreme Court could not issue a writ of mandamus; therefore, Marbury received a denial for his commission. Because of this decision, even though Marbury did not obtain his commission, the long- term effect of this monumental decision magnified the power of the Court to mandate via judicial review what a law proclaims, thus establishing the court as the final arbitrator of the

    Read More

  • Marbury v. Madison: Analyzing the Implications of Judicial Review

    1183 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Marshall, Supreme Court Justice, created legal precedence in the historical case, Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Throughout history he is portrayed as the fountainhead of judicial review. Marshall asserted the right of the judicial branch of government to void legislation it deemed unconstitutional, (Lemieux, 2003). In this essay, I will describe the factual circumstances and the Supreme Court holdings explaining the reasoning behind Chief Justice Marshall’s conclusions in the case, Marbury v. Madison. Furthermore, I will evaluate whether the doctrine of judicial review is consistent with the Constitution and analysis the positive effects of the doctrine in American politics.

    Read More

  • Marbury v Madison: Judicial Review

    1201 Words  | 3 Pages

    Marbury v. Madison, which established the power of judicial review for the Supreme Court, changed the course of American history. This power to review legislation that congress has passed and possibly deem it unconstitutional has had a profound impact on American society. This power provides a check on the Legislative branch, but it also lends itself to an important debate over when the Court can and should use this power. Should the court use this power to increase the power of the national government, something many call judicial activism? Or should this power be used to curtail national legislative power and increase the liberties given to individuals? During the period around the Great Depression, the court dealt with many economic cases regarding these questions, and at first glance, it appears that they did not seem to favor either the government or the individual. Looking closer, however, one sees that the cases that side with the individual struck down legislation that interfered with the commerce clause or police power. When legislation invoking either of the aforementioned clauses was provided, the Supreme Court tended to side with the Government over the individual, as seen in the cases Munn v. Illinois, National Relations Board v. Jones, and Wickard v. Filburn. When the legislation provided had no business with the commerce clause or police power, such as in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, the court had no choice but to side with the individual.

    Read More

  • The Case of Marbury v. Madison

    989 Words  | 2 Pages

    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 when he took charge. Marbury was one of Adams’ appointees for justice of the peace. Marbury brought a case before the Supreme Court seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the new Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the appointment.

    Read More

  • Judicial Tranny Analysis

    1169 Words  | 3 Pages

    Judicial Tyranny: The New Kings of America? Is a conglomeration of articles and short essays that attempts to expose the federal court’s relatively recent intrusion into our way of life by way of immoral legislative influence; made possible by presidents, congressmen, and apathetic voters who have relinquished their consent without contest. The author, Mark I. Sutherland and his associates believe that the Constitution’s system of checks and balances between the three branches of government has been usurped by an overreaching, immoral federal court system. The book explores how Judges have been influencing and shaping social and political policy for years by legislating from the judicial bench. In short, Americans have exchanged the rule of law for the rule by the judges. However, it does a poor job in addressing other major issues concerning the federal court system as a whole.

    Read More

  • Dworkin's Wishful-Thinkers Constitution

    2875 Words  | 6 Pages

    In this paper I explain and reject Dworkin's arguments for his view of constitutional interpretation. But with Dworkin, I reject the "originalism" of Justice Scalia and Robert Bork. I champion, instead, the moderate view that Justice Hugo Black presents in his dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut. (2)

    Read More

  • Robert Kagan And Adversarial Legalism

    1576 Words  | 4 Pages

    ... and reform. Yet, it is in my opinion that his article is of such significance because of its logistic explanation of such frequent and high volume Court case reforms. Author Mark Graber in The Lessons of Dred Scott, claimed that decision rendered by Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney in 1865 was unavoidable, simply because the decision was consistent with the times of the era (Graber, p.7). This conditionality of politics concerning political environments is evident in Kagan as well, providing both political scientists and students alike with the knowledge that Courts do and often will act not only for the majority, but also more explicitly towards the persuasion tactics of every outlet of both private and public political participation, which provides a necessary and comprehensive evaluation of the American way of law unknown to many, including myself until today.

    Read More

  • The Power of Judicial Review

    1111 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...hat Congress had no power to change the original jurisdiction, therefore finding the Judiciary Act unconstitutional. This is where the problem of judicial review arose in this case. Marshall found an act of congress unconstitutional and declared it null and void. This meant that Marbury, in addition to the rest of the judges and justices added by Adams, never had the right to be in the position they were in, and therefore Madison did not have to issue their commissions.

    Read More

  • The Marshall Court

    1506 Words  | 4 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 deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican government, he and his fellow justices sought to perpetuate their Federalist principles in the United States’ court system. In one of the most memorable court cases of all time--the case of Marbury v. Madison-- Marshall established the idea of judicial review and strengthened the power of the judicial branch in the government. Abiding by his Federalist ideals, Marshall decided cases that would explicitly limit the power of the state government and broaden the strengths of the national government. Lastly, the Marshall Court was infamous for determining the results of cases that dealt with the interpretation of the Constitution and the importance of contracts in American society. The Marshall Court, over the span of a mere three decades, managed to influence the life of every American citizen even to this day by impacting the development of the judicial branch, establishing a boundary between the state and national government, and making declarations on the sanctity of contracts ("The Marshall Court"...

    Read More

  • Marbury v. Madison: Judicial Review

    1021 Words  | 3 Pages

    President John Adams and the Federalist lost the election to Thomas Jefferson. The lame-duck Federalist of Congress enacted a Judiciary Act. The act created 58 new judgeships that Adams appointed. Forty two included justiceships of the peace. “Jefferson complained that the Federalist ‘have retired into the judiciary as a stronghold’” (Black, n.d.). Towards the end of Adams presidency, many people beside Marbury were appointed to government positions. Acting Secretary of the State John Marshall had affixed the official seal for the justices of the peace to the commissions. However they did not get delivered until the day after Adams left office. The day after Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated; James Madison was the new Secretary of State was directed to withhold delivery of the commissions which included William Marbury and 16 others. Murbury sued to have his commission handed over by Madison. Because of the Presidential seal of the United States, Marbury had the right to judicial review because the seal made it official. The Supreme Court was in charge of all cases that included public ministers, consuls and ambassadors. Having this case gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review.

    Read More

  • Parliamentary Sovereignty Or The Rule Of Law Essay

    858 Words  | 2 Pages

    An issue that has remained debatable since the Jackson litigation was what ought to be the ultimate controlling factor in the British constitution: parliamentary sovereignty or the rule of law. This essay sets out to consider the reputedly irreconcilable tension between the two fundamental constitutional principles by analysing the extensive obiter dicta in Jackson and relating it to judicial review which upholds the rule of law. The contention of this essay is that despite the courts' deferential attitude towards the sovereignty of the laws of Parliament, the rule of law may potentially gain dominance and surpass parliamentary sovereignty to become the ultimate controlling factor in the British constitution.

    Read More

  • Judicial Review

    689 Words  | 2 Pages

    It is important to understand the classic debate of Yates v. Hamilton in order to comprehend the context of judicial review in American democracy. Robert Yates was an anti-federalist and judge of the New York Supreme Court who advocated that judicial review was not consistent with the spirit of democratic government. He refused to allow the judicial branch the last word over constitutional interpretation. In his paper, Brutus #11, he contended that the power of the judicial branch would be superior to that of the legislature is the Supreme Court acted as final arbiter of the constitution’s meaning, thus “this power in the judicial, will enable them to mould the government, into almost any shape they please. — The manner in which this may be effected we will hereafter examine” (Yates). Yates, above all, believed that the constitution is the mediator between the public and their elected officials. On the other hand, federalist Alexander Hamilton defended the legitimacy of judicial review as the “least dangerous branch” of government. He explained the legitimate status of the courts through the system of checks and balances. Ham...

    Read More

More about The Court Case of Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review

Open Document