Marbury Vs. Madison: Supreme Court Case

The case of Marbury v. Madison was decided in 1803 and the court voted unanimously in favor of Marbury.

The major issue was broken down into three questions by the Supreme Court. Do plaintiffs get a right to receive their assignment? Can a plaintiff sue in court for their assignment? Finally, does the Supreme Court have the authority to force the transportation of the assignment? The constitutional issues of Marbury v. Madison was about whether or not Madison was neglecting his constitutional duty. In short, the plaintiffs have a right to receive their assignment, a plaintiff can sue for their employment, but the Supreme Court does not have the authority to force those transportation of the assignment. This means that President Jefferson

This is extremely important because this sets up judicial review or the ability of the court system to compare every act of legislation from executive orders to all of the laws made from congress and compare them to the Constitution to see if they are unconstitutional or not. Marshall called the Constitution the “supreme law of the land” and said that it is the job of the Supreme Court to decide what the Constitution means. After this ruling, the Supreme Court was given more power and made it on more equal footing with the other two branches of government. Today, the Supreme Court would not have been as influential in history as it has been if this ruling was not created by Marshall. This made the Supreme Court have a purpose besides dealing with disputes between

Sanford was decided in 1857 and the court voted 7-2 in favor of Sanford.

The major issue was Dred Scott free or a slave? This was then broken down further to did or could a slave became free when entering a free State? Then, could an African American sue in federal courts? After moving more towards the federal government, could the not allow the right to property without due process of law and property be taken without reasonable compensation? Finally, the last question that was asked was the Missouri Compromise constitutional? These were the main constitutional issues that were discussed and considered when the case was brought to the Supreme Court.

The majority opinion was given by Chief Justice Taney. The first reason that this was important according to Taney, was that African Americans were not citizens and a slave was property. Therefore, property can not sue in a federal court. Taney also felt that since the petitioner was a resident of Missouri, Missouri law should apply, not Illinois. The reasoning is not clear because it appeared through their actions and the dissenting opinions that the majority voted to keep slavery not on constitutional basis, but needed a reason to keep slavery. The majority opinion also stated that through their actions, they had hoped stop the questions of slavery once and for