The Marbury versus Madison case of 1803 irrefutably remains one of the most significant cases in history of the Supreme Court, because it was the first United States Supreme Court case to utilize the principle known as judicial review (History.com Staff, 2009). This principle gives the Judicial Branch of the government, in particular the federal courts, the power to declare an act of Congress null and void if they find that it conflicts with the Constitution of the United States. This mandate, by Chief Justice John Marshall, would become a point of contention that places the Supreme Court on par with not only Congress, but the Executive Branch of the government as well.
The sequence of events leading to this decision comprised a complex series…show more content… 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…show more content… Many operate under the principle referred to as the law of the land, which especially true of England and the Netherlands. This concept finds its basis on the ideas of the elected parliament as to their declarations of the precepts of the law as they view it. This particular reasoning evolved via the death of Charles Stuart, the king of England, upon his execution on January 30th, 1649. As a result, of the execution, England had no central ruler and the constituents of the House of Commons began the duty of transforming the government. Because the House of Lords opposed the trial of the tyrannical king, the House of Commons declared itself the ruling body negating any power the House of Lords possessed and thus, abolishing it. Consequently, the House of Commons maintained that it would become their responsibility to protect not only the liberty, but also the safe being, and the interest of the public at large, thus Parliament came into being (Lee, n.d.). Furthermore, they mandated that a single person having sole power presented a danger to the whole of the public welfare and the monarchy existence was figuratively only. Because of these acts, with the abolishment of the House of Lords and the monarchy as such, a contingency of forty-one members comprising the Council of State became the ruling authority establishing the laws of the