More handpicked essays just for you.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), brief case summary
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), brief case summary
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), brief case summary
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Marbury v. Madison
It is noted that the Marbury v. Madison case is one of the most influential Cases in Supreme Court history. This particular case was the first to apply the judicial review principle. The judicial review principle is the power held by the Supreme Court to judge whether a piece of legislation or an official act violates the U.S. Constitution or other principles of justice. Marbury v. Madison is said to have laid the foundation for the Court’s to contribute ‘render’ its adjudication about the actions and laws. During this influential case, the Supreme Court acclaimed that the power to review the acts of the president and congress were unconstitutional. Before this case arose, President John Adams appointed a surplus of justices of peace for the District of Columbia. These commissions were signed by the president, approved by the Senate, and lastly, the seal was affixed by the secretary of state. On March 5, 1801, James Madison was ordered not to deliver these commissions. This sparked the Marbury v. Madison case. Marbury was one of the appointees who petitioned the Supreme Court for a ‘writ of mandamus’ to show account of why he had not received his commission. As this case is brought to the court's attention Chief Justice Marshall answers three questions throughout this case. The
…show more content…
Being in accordance with the procedures gave him the right to writ. The next question to analyze is “Did the laws of the United States allow the courts to grant Marbury such a writ?” due to Marbury having the legal right to his authority, the U.S. laws had to give a solution to this issue. It is the right of the Chief Justice to protect the rights of American Citizens even if that means opposing the President of the United
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.
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 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.
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.
James Madison, an American statesman and political theorist that was present at the constitutional convention. Many of the ideas proposed by Madison are part of the reason that the Constitution has withstood the test of time. Madison was ultimately prepared to deal with one of the biggest problems this new government would face in his eyes, factions. Factions, which as defined by Madison are “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” (Madison 156). Madison addresses various ways that he sees factions can be cured of its mischiefs such as removing a faction’s causes and also controlling their effects. Madison points out that this is would potentially create an even bigger problem than the factions themselves by stating, “Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an ailment, without which it instantly expires” (Madison 156) Madison also stated that the way for a government to remove the cause of faction was either to destroy the liberty that causes factions to exist in the first place or to give every citizen the same beliefs and opinions. Madison deemed this impractical, because it is nearly impossible to give everyone in a given place the same opinions and destroying the liberty would take away the very thing that the colonies fought for 4 years earlier. The fact is Madison knew that the country wouldn’t be able to count on a well-educated statesman to be there any time a faction gets out of hand. Madison knew the only viable way to keep factions under control is not to get rid of factions entirely but to set a r...
Newmyer, R. Kent. John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court. Baton Rouge:
The Supreme Court was known for some of the most notorious decisions made in history, many in which included the cases, Marbury v. Madison, Scott v. Sandford, and United States v. Cruikshank. Despite these cases, the court did turn around and change their perspective and helped minorities achieve their civil rights. In 1915, the case of Guinn and Beal v. United States helped African Americans reassure their right to vote. In this case the Supreme Court considered the grandfather clause to be unconstitutional. The grandfather clause was a mechanism t...
In the end the court, led by John Marshall, rule that Madison could not be forced to seat Marbury as it was. The outcome of the case was divided by both the Federalists and Republicans parties and since then it’s goes down in American history as the Supreme Court’s most crucial court case.
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...
Also the prime suspect had other charges pending against him such as possession of illegal substances and the homeowner of the vacant crime scene said the man was a recovering addict. During the conversation with the officers Johnson refused to give up his DNA sample. The man profess he had not commit any murders and did not commit any crimes regarding the matter. Officers then compel him to give his DNA sample with a warrant compelling him to follow the order. Moreover, after the crime was committed it was discovered that Johnson try to sell one of the victims’ cell phone. He was trying to get rid of the evidence that could implement him on the crime. Witness came forward to verify this story that Johnson indeed try to sell the cell phone for cash. In addition, witness said that Johnson try to be the pimp of the victims that he was
The book raises the importance of, and questions, the writ of habeas corpus. Carter used a writ of habeas corpus to get a federal trial. Many question the legality of Carter going into federal jurisdiction, when his case should have been heard before the Supreme Court of New Jersey. It was a gamble, but the federal judge gave fair justice to Carter and Artis. The State of New Jersey appealed the case all the way to the United States Supreme Court, which upheld the District Court’s ruling.
These early Supreme Court decisions have made a lasting impression on the United States. Marbury v. Madison established the concept of judicial review that strengthened the ability of the judcicary to act as a check against the legislative and executive branches by providing for the review of Congressional acts by the judiciary to determine the constitutionality of such acts. McCulloch v. Maryland allowed for the expansion of Congress’ implied powers needed to execute its delegated powers as well as defined the supremacy of constitutionally enacted federal entities over state statutes.
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.