After the 1800 election where Thomas Jefferson won, President John Adams proceed to fill the judicial branch with members of his own party, the Federalists. In response, Jefferson's party of the Republicans repealed the Judiciary Act of 1800. This act created new position on the bench for Federalist judges. The Supreme Court was threatened with impeachment if they overturned the repeal (Marbury v. Madison,1803).
President Adams attempted to fill these new vacancies prior to the end of his term but some of the commissions were not delivered. When Jefferson was sworn in, he refused to honor these commissions. As a result, one of the appointees, William Marbury, sued the new Secretary of State, James Madison. Marbury asked the Supreme Court to order the delivery of his commission (Marbury v. Madison,1803).
The new chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall knew that the court issued a writ of mandamus, Jefferson would ignore and effectively weakening the authority of the courts. But if the Court denied the writ, the court would appear to others that it acted out of fear. Either case would be a denial of the basic principle of the supremacy of the law (Marbury v. Madison,1803).
Instead Marshall found a different path. The court would chastise the Jefferson administration for their actions while enhancing the court's power. Marshall declared that Madison should have delivered the commission however, the Court lacked the power to issue the writ of mandamus by reason of under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Because the Constitution is considered the law of the land the Judiciary Act of 1789 that granted the Court power to issue writs was null and void because of Article III. It states the authority given to the Court d...
... middle of paper ...
...t does not have the power of judicial review in the Constitution. They probably think that the Constitution states it when it does not. Americans accept what is going on in the federal government because they either do not care or just do not want to read all the documents and find out for themselves.
Works Cited
FamGuardian.org. (n. d.). Thomas Jefferson on politics & government: 18. judicial review. Retrieved June 16, 2011, from http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1030.htm#Top
Marbury v. Madison - Case Brief Summary, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L.Ed.60 (1803). Retrieved June 16, 2011, from http://www.lawnix.com/cases/marbury-madison.html
Serves, S. (2009, March 5). Judicial Review in the Netherlands. Retrieved June 16, 2011, from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1522109/judicial_review_in_the_netherlands.h tml?cat=17
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...
In the case of U.S. v Jones, the judicial branch had to address the questionable topic of whether or not the Fourth Amendment was violated (). Since this case was not black and white and did bring up many questions as to what was constitutional, the judges had to use judicial review. Judicial review is the power that allows judges to interpret the meaning of laws (Class, March 13). Once a law is understood a certain way, the people must follow it (Class, __). The U.S. v Jones case deals with the Bill of Rights (United, 1). This is due to the circumstance that the Fourth Amendment is included in the Bill of Rights document stating that “searches and seizures” cannot be done without a warrant (Class,___). The case of U.S. v Jones was about the violation of Jones’s Fourth Amendment when a GPS device was placed on his jeep without his consent because he was suspected of drug possession (United, 1). Since judges have the power to informally amend the Constitution using judicial review (Class, ___), they must take into consideration many contributing elements when making a decision.
Certain things became apparent to Marshall. The Constitution did give the federal government complete control over the nation’s commerce. (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) Also, the Federal Law, according to the Constitution, was the supreme law of the land. (Article 6, Clause 2) Marshall, a Federalist, had always supported a strong central government. However, issues were arising in other parts of the country that would make him consider any decision he made further.
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.
Madison as he was in the Louisiana Purchase, he was still a key player in this episode that redefined the Judiciary branch of American government. Jefferson had just taken over the presidency from John Adams, a member of the rival Federalist Party, who, during his last days in office, had many of his fellow Federalists assigned offices in the Judiciary, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall (Goldfield 277). Jefferson and his Secretary of State, James Madison, resented this Federalist grab for power and refused to give one of the appointees his position. This appointee, William Marbury, used the Judiciary Act of 1789 to take the issue to court (277). However Marshall, did not rule that Marbury be given his appointment by Jefferson, who had been actively removing Federalist Judges and would likely choose not to acknowledge Marshall’s authority (277). Marshall took a different approach, instead of giving Marbury his appointment, he declared the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional because it gave the Supreme Court authority that was beyond what was outlined in the Constitution (277). By taking away some of his own authority, Marshall gave the Supreme Court the formidable ability to declare laws unconstitutional (277). Interestingly, it would never have happened if Jefferson and his administration had not have taken action (or in this case lack of action) against the appointment
"Key Supreme Court Cases: Schenck v. United States - American Bar ..." 2011. 14 Jan. 2014
Roach, K. (2008). Dialogic Judicial Review and Its Critics. In D. Dyzenhaus, S. Reibetanz Moreau, & A. Ripstein, Law and Morality: Readings in Legal Philosophy (3rd Edition ed., pp. 589-644). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Madison is the first of many important opinions issued by Marshall. It established a precedent for the use of "judicial review," the Supreme Court 's power to determine whether a law is constitutional or unconstitutional. While the idea of judicial review was not new at the time, the decision in Marbury helped to establish the role of the judiciary and spelled out the role of the Supreme Court within the structure of the U.S. government. At the same time, Marshall 's opinion appeared impartial to the political aspects of the case in an attempt to demonstrate that politics should not interfere with legal decisions. His thought in relation to understanding the case comes from his belief in the federal judiciary needing to protect citizens from overreaching state governments, which can be done by declaring laws enacted by state governments
Jost, Kenneth. "The Federal Judiciary." CQ Researcher 8.10 (1998). CQ Researcher. SAGE Publications. Web. 01 Mar. 2011. .
When Jefferson came into office, he planned to institute the policies of the Democratic-Republicans in domestic affairs. The judicial system had gained a lot of power through the Federalists which forced Jefferson to attempt to shrink their influence. He ultimately prevailed, and even reduce...
Jefferson’s first act as president was to tell Secretary of State James Madison to withhold the midnight appointment of William Marbury to the office of Justice of the Peace of the District of Columbia. Marbury sued for the appointment President Adams had given him and Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in his favor. The case Marbury vs. Madison set the precedent of the courts right to judicial review of the other branches of government.
On June 26, 2015, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right in the decision on Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al. This controversial decision overturned the law of more than 17 states. In the 5-4 decision, Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan voted with the majority and Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito were dissenting. At the heart of the controversy is the philosophy of judicial restraint and judicial activism. Was the Obergefell decision an example of judicial activism? Certainly, because it declared state laws banning same-sex marriages as unconstitutional. The Court’s decision, which was based on precedent and interpretation of the Constitution, was just.
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"...
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.