What is most remarkable about the case of Marbury vs. Madison is the clever way in which Chief Justice John Marshall approached the Court’s final decision. He and his colleagues decided to use a three-pronged test to determine whether or not Mr. Marbury was entitled to the reprieve he was seeking. And it seemed as if he would. But then, two-thirds of the way into the Court’s opinion, Marshall decided to refer back to the Judiciary Act of 1789. After careful review, he announced that this writ of mandamus in particular was actually an expansion of original jurisdiction. Congress had inadvertently expanded the power of the Court. Marshall decided that this section of the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional and motioned for it to be thrown out. …show more content…
Madison led to the Supreme Court being the final arbitrator of the meaning of our nation’s Constitution. When trying to reconcile this historical precedent with the concept of the “political question doctrine”, we must first determine the true function of this doctrine. In US Constitutional law, the political question doctrine is closely linked to the concept of justiciability. Justiciability is decided by the Court in a particular fashion of common law. Its only constitutional guidance is in Article III, Section Two. It is used to determine whether or not the court system is an appropriate forum in which to hear the case. Court systems have authority to hear and deicide questions of legality and law. This does not include politically charged disputes. Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are non-justiciable. So the political question doctrine can be seen as a tool to not only control the Court’s workload, but also ensure that the justices can avoid making decisions on highly politicized issues. Which, in itself, can be seen as a political move in favor of the legislative and executive …show more content…
Marshall purposefully empowered the judicial branch with this capability in the hopes that it would ensure that the other branches of government are always abiding by the Constitution. On the other hand, the political question doctrine seems to leave the “last word” to the political branches. The doctrine is designed to aid the judicial branch in their endeavors to avoid unnecessarily inserting itself into conflicts between the federal government branches. For example, in the Supreme Court case of Baker v. Car, the Court outlined that the political question doctrine is based primarily on the separation of powers. When a question is entangled with any of the other two branches of government it presents a political question. This case set a precedent that under these circumstances the Court will not answer such an inquiry without further clarification from the legislative and executive bodies. Going back to the idea of justiciability, we can conclude that there are some questions that are simply best resolved through the political processes. The Supreme Court and all other court systems must respect this assertion in order to maintain their own integrities. When both of these historic managerial policies are followed and respected by all three branches of government, we are presented with a somewhat harmonious bond between the judiciary and politics. This is one way in which our nation’s
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
In Francis N. Stites' book, John Marshall, Defender of the Constitution, he tells the story of John Marshall's life by breaking up his life into different roles such as a Virginian, Lawyer, Federalist, National Hero, and as Chief of Justice.
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.
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
When the rights of the American citizen are on the line than the judiciary should utilize the powers invested in them to protect and enforce what is constitutional. However, in times of controversy, where personal preference or aspects of religious or personal nature are at hand, the judiciary should exercise their power with finesse, thereby acting out judicial restraint. An example of such is in the case of Engel v. Vitale where Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court directing the School District’s principal to read a prayer at the commencement of each school day. In cases that do not regard whether an action is constitutional or not, the judiciary should suppress their power of judicial review.
The evolution of power gained by the Federal government can be seen in the McCuloch versus Maryland (1819) case. This case des...
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"...
The U.S. Supreme Court would frequently dismiss complaints from Congress related to foreign relations because they were considered to be “political questions” (Hook 115). Congress sometimes used the courts to attempt to punish or restrict the presidents. An example of a case was Goldwater et al. v. Carter. In this case, “…the Supreme Court supported President Jimmy Carter’s right to terminate the U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan. In the Court’s view, the case was ‘political’ because no clear violations of the Constitution had occurred” (Hook 116). Another example of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the president came in a series of cases, Crockett v. Reagan and Lowry v. Reagan. In these cases, “…the Court again dismissed as ‘political’ congressional claims that the president had overstepped his constitutional bounds by deploying troops in conflict overseas” (Hook 116). The Supreme Court was consistently dismissing Congress’
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...
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
In 1803, the decision in Marbury v Madison held that the Supreme Court had the ability to practice the process of judicial review. With this ruling, the Court gave itself the power to deem legislation constitutional or unconstitutional. With this bolstered power, the Supreme Court made numerous landmark decisions throughout the 19th and during the first half of the 20th centuries. The Supreme Court’s power of judicial review played an integral role in shaping post-bellum racial laws and attitudes. In the cases of Plessey v. Ferguson and Brown v. The Board of Education the Supreme Court invoked judicial review to assess racial segregation policies as they related to the 14th Amendment. Both Plessey and Brown are landmark cases because they reflected the social climate of their respective time periods, because both cases had immediate impact upon civil rights law and everyday life in America, and because both cases affected basic interpretation of the Constitution.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
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.