Marbury Vs. Madison: The Supreme Court Case

768 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Marbury v madison case summary

The Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison occurred in 1803. During President John Adams last few hours as President, he appointed Marbury and a few other people as Supreme Court Justices. The Senate confirmed his nominations, and the commissions were signed. John Marshall, President Adams' secretary of state did not physically deliver the commissions before his presidency ended because he simply ran out of time. Thomas Jefferson became President after Adams and did not to allow his Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the commission to Marbury. The plaintiff, in this case Marbury, sued Madison in the Supreme Court and argued that in refusing to deliver the commission, Madison was neglecting his Constitutional duty.
The main questions …show more content…

Can they sue for their commissions in court? Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the delivery of their commissions? Chief Justice John Marshall found that the plaintiffs did indeed have a right to receive their commissions even though they were not physically given to them before John Adam’s presidency ended. John Marshall declared that once the commissions were signed by the President, the appointment process was finalized and complete. Therefore, Jefferson was not following the law by refusing to give commission. The Supreme Court also decided that since Marbury and others had been given a commission by President Adams, they had acquired rights to their positions. If those rights are denied, then they can sue to obtain them. The important question of whether the Supreme Court has the authority to order the delivery of their commissions was answered in an incredibly creative and remarkable way by Chief Justice John Marshall. Marbury and others demanded that the Supreme court use their power of writ of mandamus found in the Judiciary Act of 1789 in order to mandate that …show more content…

They took it upon themselves to check and decide to limit their power and decrease, by determining part of the Judiciary Act as unconstitutional, in order to keep a better balance between the branches. If they had not made this decision, the Supreme Court would have essentially been empowered to make any law that could potentially override the constitution. By establishing that the constitution takes precedent, this issue was avoided. Another aspect that I admire is that even though most of the justices were Federalists, and Marbury and the others were also Federalists, they still carried out an unbiased interpretation of the law. They could have easily gone against the Jefferson organization and accepted these people as judges and ordered the executive branch to obey. They gained trust and appreciation from the new President of the United States at the cost of Marbury but this was a well calculated and necessary trade-off. I found it extremely compelling that Marshall went back to the constitution to determine the legitimacy of a law. This set the precedent of Judicial review, where the Supreme Court can deem a law created by congress unconstitutional. This precedent helps keep other branches in check and further balances the three branches of government, truly showing the brilliance and cleverness of Marshall’s decision and the legal process in which he got there.

Show More
Related

  • The Court Case: Mcculloch V. Maryland

    811 Words  | 2 Pages

    Maryland 's main arguments were as follows: 1) they had the right to regulate businesses and taxes within their state 2) the Federal government regulated state banks so why couldn’t a state regulate a Federal bank 3) the Constitution gives the Federal government no authority to set up a bank, and therefore it was unconstitutional. On the other side, McCullough 's arguments were: 1) Congress had deemed the creation of a national bank as necessary and proper as a way to conduct financial operations 2) the Constitution is only a framework and not all national operations that may arise could have been listened 3) the federal government is supreme over the state government, and therefore Maryland has no right to question the Second Bank of the United States. In the end, John Marshall gave his verdict in favor of McCulloch and the federal government. In his explanation, he said because of Article I, Section 8 Congress could indeed do whatever they felt was necessary under the “Elastic Clause”. Also, Marshall referred to the Supremacy Clause when he said “As long as the national government behaved in accordance with the Constitution, it’s policies took precedence over state policies”. Finally, Marshall laid out the groundwork for the “implied powers”, which are the powers of the government which have not been explicitly granted by the Constitution.

    Read More

  • The Court Case of Clinton v. The City of New York

    835 Words  | 2 Pages

    There have been many, many court cases throughout the history of the United States. One important case that I believe to be important is the court case of Clinton v. New York. This case involves more than just President Bill Clinton, the City of New York. It involved Snake River Farmers’ as well. This case mostly revolves around the president’s power of the line item veto.

    Read More

  • The Court Case of Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review

    866 Words  | 2 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Gibbons V. Ogden (1824)

    969 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Judicial Review: Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton

    1059 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Influence Of Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase

    1033 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Thomas Jeff. Outline

    941 Words  | 2 Pages

    B. Mabury vs. Madison, 1803: Jefferson failed to uphold the law by refusing to appoint

    Read More

  • How Did John Marshall Influence The Federal Government

    468 Words  | 1 Pages

    Marshall made a landmark decision in the MARBURY V. MADISON case, that would define the boundries between the executive and judical branches of the American government. Marbury had been appointed as a Justice of the Peace by John Adams, but his commission was not delivered before Thomas Jefferson assumed the Presidency in 1801. Marbury filed a petition with the Supreme Court to force the Secretary of

    Read More

  • James Madison on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

    1007 Words  | 3 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Jacksonian Democracy

    779 Words  | 2 Pages

    Throughout the Jacksonian era the Jacksonians proved to be violators of the United States Constitution and not the guardians they believed themselves to be. Both the Jacksonians and President Jackson went against the Supreme Courts regarding cases that were said to be constitutional. An instance in which the Jacksonian Democrats violated the Constitution was in the "Trail of Tears". The Supreme Court stated that the Jacksonian Democrats' actions were unconstitutional because they had issued the "Indian Removal Act". By doing this, they were in violation of the treaty of New Echota. In the 1832 decision Worcester v. Georgia, Chief Justice Marshall ruled that the Cherokees had their own land and that they did not need to follow Georgia law in their own territory. This ruling of the Supreme Court did not stop Jacksonians from driving the Cherokees off of their land. Jackson used the Constitution to benefit himself when he vetoed the national bank, even after the Supreme Court had already ruled that the bank was constitutional. When South Carolina declared a reduced tariff void and threatened to secede, President Jackson responded in an unconstitutionally. He threatened to send militia to enforce the tariff and the Jacksonian Congress passed a bill approving this military force, if necessary. This was in direct violation of the Constitution. They continued to violate the Constitution by placing censors on the mail and intercepting abolitionist literature or mail into or from the south. This was an infringement on the Constitution because it violated the first amendment.

    Read More

  • The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment

    2077 Words  | 5 Pages

    ...ntegrity of the American government and follows the Constitution which is what our nation is structured after. Had these Justices not made such remarkable decisions many others would suffer. It would be difficult to fathom a nation where women could not vote, races lived separately and immigrants were unable to create a life of their own. The fact that the Supreme Court made radical movements to spread equality throughout the nation and was able to excel and continue to institute this idea is what separates America from the rest of the world.

    Read More

  • Thomas Jefferson

    1060 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Marshall Court

    1506 Words  | 4 Pages

    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"...

    Read More

  • John Marshall's Effect on the American Judicial System

    1672 Words  | 4 Pages

    The judicial power, also known back then as The Weakest Branch, was created to achieve an effective collaboration of the powers, what we call now Check and Balances. One of the framers of the Judicial Power was John Marshall. Chief Justice John Marshall is one of the main figures in the history of the US Judicial System. He was the youngest Chief Justices in the history of the United States and was the developer of the most important power of the Supreme Court, The Judicial Review.

    Read More

  • The Case of Marbury v. Madison

    989 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

More about Marbury Vs. Madison: The Supreme Court Case

Open Document