Marbury v Madison Case Brief PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Brief, mandatory assignment due every week ...

Description

Samantha Glazer Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 Case Facts As this case deals with the process concerning the appointment of particular government officials of higher rank, this case is considerably one of the most influential and monumental decisions in the history of the United States. This case begins with former president, John Adams, as he attempted to appoint William Marbury as a justice of the peace, but failed to complete the formal appointment prior to his termination as president. Because newly elected president, Thomas Jefferson disliked John Adams, him along with the secretary of state, James Madison, denied Marbury of his commissions. Appellant: William Marbury William Marbury filed for a Writ of Mandamus, which brought this case directly to the Supreme Court requesting the deliverance of his commission for the post he had been appointed to. Marbury argued that it is his constitutional right to be given what was appointed to him and furthermore, that he should be allowed to take on his post as Justice of Peace because of this constitutional right. Appellee: James Madison Thomas Jefferson ordered that secretary of state, James Madison, was not to deliver any commissions that were not delivered prior to them taking office. James Madison, along with Thomas Jefferson, argued that because the commissions were not delivered in time, they were to be voided, and furthermore, it was not the responsibility of the new office bearers to deliver them. Legal Issue(s) and Holding Issue:  Do the plaintiffs have a right to be delivered their commissions?  Can they sue for such commissions in a court of law?  Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order deliverance of the commissions? Holding:  Yes, due to the commission providing the evidence needed to support the individual’s appointment, they do in fact have the right to receive their commission.  Yes: Considering that the commissions were signed and furthermore, appointed to them, they do hold the right to sue for the commission if not delivered to them.  No: The court’s ruling held that their jurisdiction did not include the role of ordering that the commissions be delivered. o They found that Section 13 of The Judiciary Act took away the authority of the United States Supreme Court, as it further invalidated what the constitution said. Opinions Majority opinion: (Delivered by Justice John Marshall) In a unanimous decision of 4-0, Justice John Marshall delivered the majority opinion as he reiterated the previously stated facts that there was a mandated right to receive commission appointed to the individual, and that Marbury did have the right to sue because of this. However, the court did not have the authority to order that the commissions be delivered because of section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, and Article III, section 2, of the constitution. The court ruled that because of these conflicting articles, the court could not set a precedent due to the fact that they would be overstepping their boundaries, set from the balance in power within the United States government. He further attributes the Supremacy Clause, and how it clearly lists the

“constitution” before listing the “Laws of the United States” within the Judge’s oath that is to be upheld in the constitution. Comments: As this case is considered to be a landmark decision Supreme Court Case, I found it interesting that the court held that it were not under their jurisdiction to order these commissions to be delivered. As the court sought to avoid the setting of a new precedent, they ultimately established the concept of Judicial Review in doing so. Because they were so focused on the sequential wording of the documents presented, they proved to be extremely literal but at the same time, I felt that this case could be seen as extremely perceptive in its nature. Although the commissions were not physically delivered to the people they were appointed to by the president, I do in fact feel that the authority lays within the current president to deliver them. With that being said, if the president finds that the appointee is not someone that they would personally appoint, they shouldn’t be obligated to follow through on the previous president’s duties. The reason why there are elections, and limitations on how long elected officials are able to hold their position in office, is because of the differing views exemplified by partisanship within the United States. As the newly elected President assumes his/her position into office, they should be required only to follow suit considering the formally appointed officials, not the officials that were “almost” appointed....