Analysis Of The Supreme Court Case: Marbury Vs. Madison

NAME OF THE CASE: Marbury v Madison 1803 VOTE: The vote count was 4-0 BASIC FACTS OF THE CASE: In March of 1801, William Marbury (along with many others being appointed to government posts) was appointed to be a Justice of the Peace near the end of Adams administration of the presidency. Being a member of the Federalist Party, John Adams tried to appoint as many Federalists into the cabinet.

The signifigance or Marbury vs. Madison is the ruling gave of the Supreme Court of the U.S.A the power of Judicial review and also gave courts some power to try and take down legislation that was unconstitutional. In Marbury the Supreme Court declared a law passed by the government was unconstitutional and should be not be enforced called the Judiciary Law of 1789.The decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally judicial and executtive branches of forming the American government. Marbury vs. Madison has been used as justification for the amassing of power by the supreme court. Marshall justified his ruling that the Supreme Court could not order Madison to deliver Marbury's because part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional because it expanded the Court's original jurisdiction to include cases like

Protocol was that each man would receive a signed and sealed paper commission. James Madison was Secretary of State at the present time and one of his duties was to deliver the commission or notice of appointments. Madison was instructed by Thomas Jefferson not to do so and he complied. Marbury and other justices of the peace sued Madison and requested that the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus requiring his

In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the court used its jurisdiction authority to hear and decide the issues put forth in Marbury v. Madison. This Supreme Court case argued for William Marbury’s commission, although it was denied by Thomas Jefferson’s secretary, James Madison. This case further helped to establish judicial review, the power of the courts to review acts of other branches of government and the states. In the case of Marbury v. Madison, the court used appellate jurisdiction and eventually appellate court to review and revise the law made by a lower court.

Madison is a case of the Supreme Court of the United States in 1803 that inspired the establishment of Judicial Review. During the presidency of Adams, John Marshall appointed as Justice of the Peace in D.C. However, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson’s secretary of state, refused to deliver Marbury's appointment papers. Without discrepancy, Marbury directly sued the Supreme Court, and order Madison to deliver the appointment papers. Nevertheless, Chief Justice John Marshall lectures Jefferson that the Court could not grant the writ because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 didn’t allow so, although the appointment should have been delivered.

Under the Judiciary Act of 1801, Marbury sued Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789. He was asking the Court to force Madison to accept the appointment. The court denied and held that it lacked strength because the section of the Judiciary Act passed by Congress in 1789 authorized the Court to issue such a writ was invalid. Chief Justice John Marshall declared that the Constitution must always

One of the things Marshal did in the decision was scold Jefferson and his cabinet. He did this by writing that Marbury was treated poorly because his commission was illegally retained and he should have been given it when asked for. Marbury won Jefferson and his cabinet, but there was much more to this decision. Chief Justice Marshall also decided that the Supreme Court did not have power in this Case. Marshall said that the law which expanded the Judiciary was unconstitutional.

He argued that, by law, Madison must deliver his notice and that Jefferson must allow him to take his position. In the case of Marbury v. Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Marbury had the right to his position but that the court could not force Jefferson or Congress to give it to him. The Supreme Court ruled the Judiciary Act of 1801 unconstitutional. This was

He expanded the power of the Supreme Court by declaring that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that the Supreme Court Justices were the final deciders. In the Marbury vs. Madison case, Marshall wrote "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” John Marshall was clearly in favor of judicial power, and believed that the Supreme Court should have the final say in cases involving an interpretation of the Constitution. While establishing this, he kept the separation of powers in mind, as he wanted equal representation among the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches. In the Marbury vs. Madison, John Marshall declared that the Judicial Branch could not force Madison to deliver the commission.

So Marshall denied the petition and refused to issue the writ. In section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 it notes that writs can indeed be issued, but that particular section of the act was not consistent with the Constitution, making it invalid. I believe that John Marshall implemented this final decision because it was first of all highly appropriate, as well as it more or less was a good solution for both parties. Yes, Marbury deserved to have his commission but the lawsuit was not necessarily an appropriate way to go about receiving it. Marshall knew that if he were going to protect the power of the Supreme Court then he would have to declare the act

Marbury demanded that the spot was his. The situation escalated and was finally taken up in the Supreme Court. Once there, John Marshall ruled that although he felt it morally right that Marbury be given the position he was promised in the document, the failure to have the document commissioned on time prevented him from taking up the position. In doing so John Marshall gave the supreme court the power to review the validity of a legislative act - Judicial review. This increased the Judicial Branch's power and gave it equal standing with the legislative and executive branches.

When Thomas Jefferson won the election of 1800, the federalist President Adams proceeded to quickly fill vacancies in the judiciary with members of his own party that could be judge of lifetime if they had a good behavior. In response, the Republicans of Jefferson repealed the Judiciary Act of 1800. Although the President Adams tried of cover them vacant before the end of his mandate, a series of commissions had not been expressed. Therefore, when Jefferson became president, he refused to honor the appointments of last hour of President John Adams. As a result, William Marbury, one of those named demanded James Madison, the new Secretary of State, and asked the Supreme Court to order the delivery of his Commission as a Justice of the peace.

In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton lays out his vision for how the Supreme Court of the United States should function. In it, he assures that one of the key roles of the Supreme Court will be to check the constitutionality of congressional legislation in order to protect the individual rights of the people. However, in his opinion for the Marbury v. Madison case in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall interprets the power of judicial review from Article III of the constitution, in a way in which the court becomes a powerful branch of government. With Marshall’s interpretation, the court is able to declare null legislation if it contradicts the constitution. Hamilton did not intend for the court to have the power to nullify legislation, but

Justice Thurgood Marshall Response Justice Thurgood Marshall said in his “Reflections on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution”, “I do not believe the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental as today” (Marshall). In this passage of his essay, Judge Marshall is critical of the government that is

Madison court case that took place in 1803. The law that was declared by the Supreme Court at this hearing was that a court has the power to declare an act of Congress void if it goes against the Constitution. This case took place because President John Adams had appointed William Marbury as justice of the peace in the District of Columbia, and the new president, Thomas Jefferson, did not agree with this decision. William Marbury was not appointed by the normal regulation, which was that the Secretary of State, James Madison, needed to make a notice of the appointment. James Madison did not follow through and make a notice of Marbury’s appointment; therefore, he sued James Madison, which was where the Supreme Court came in place.