Marbury v. Madison - Grade: B+ PDF

Preview

Summary

On the case of Marbury v Madison...

Description

1

Marbury v Madison

Marbury v. Madison Joanna Amber Urmeneta JUS 325: The Adjudication Function AS Consoli January 17, 2021

2

Marbury v Madison Historical Backdrop

During the 1800s, a presidential election was taking place between two candidates, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Even though Adams lost the election against Jefferson, he decided to do one more action before leaving office, which is appointing a lot of federalist judges to the district of Columbia courts. The senate approved the appointed judges and Adams, who was the president at the time signed the document. Before the judges could continue their duties, they just needed their commissions to proceed. However, James Madison, who was Jefferson’s secretary of state didn’t deliver the commission. As a result, William Marbury, who is one of the appointees, decided to sue Madison and requested the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a court order. Due to this case, Chief Justice John Marshall got involved and ruled on the Marbury v. Madison case. Justice Marshall viewed the case and looked over the Judiciary Act of 1789, Section 13, states “the act to establish the judicial courts of the United States authorizes the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus, ”(UMKC School of Law, n.d). The case was an original jurisdiction instead of an appellate jurisdiction, which caused the court to deny Marbury’s request. At the same time, Justice Marshall discovered that the Judiciary Act of 1789, Section 13 and Article III of the Constitution, Section 2 conflicted with each other. So, Justice Marshall ruled that the Supreme Court doesn’t have the power over this case and pointed out that Marbury was entitled to his commission and right to remedy. His decision ended up establishing an evaluation of . federal law called judicial review Justice Marshall’s rationale Justice Marshall got appointed by Adams, who was a Federalist while the current president, Jefferson, was an anti-federalists. So, Justice Marshall didn’t have many options when making his decision because it was either going against his party or siding with the enemy. In the

3

Marbury v Madison

end, Justice Marshall could have sided with his party, but ended up making a decision based on what is best. When making the decision, Justice Marshall was in a difficult position because his position as a Chief Justice wasn’t secure and that Jefferson could kick him out of his position. Since Marshall is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he was granted to write the final decision instead of giving the final say. Justice Marshall had to break down his decision into three questions in order to come with the final decision. However, his decision would need to be complying with the law, and he did by discussing the Judiciary Act of 1789, Section 13 and . Article III of the Constitution, Section 2 in his reasoning If Justice Marshall ruled that Madison should hand Marbury’s commission, then it would go against the Constitution. In Article III of the Constitution, Section 2, states “In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction,” (Cornell Law School, n.d). The reason is that Marbury was having an original jurisdiction even though he isn’t an ambassador, public minister and consuls, and states. If Marbury went to another court before going to the Supreme Court, then the Supreme Court would be able to hear the case because it is an appellate jurisdiction. An appellate jurisdiction is someone that wants to appeal after going to different courts. Justice Marshall knew that the Constitution has a higher power than the Judiciary Act of . 1789 , which meant the legislative and executive acts were unconstitutional Not only that, but under the Judiciary Act of 178, Section 13, Marbury’s rights weren't violated. So, Justice Marshall had to think on his own to resolve the matter. As a result, Justice Marshall ended up creating a judicial review that would help the system of checks and balances to ensure that the legislative and executive branch comply with the Constitution. He saw this as a . way for the judicial branch on upholding the Constitution as the supreme law of the land

4

Marbury v Madison Significance of Marbury v. Madison

The Judiciary Act of 1789 established three sections for the federal court system, which is district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court. This act established jurisdiction of each branch and it also created positions in the federal courts. However, this act was the first to violate the Constitution because it was beyond the Supreme Court power. Besides the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Judiciary Act of 1801 was established that “reduced the size of the Supreme Court from six justices to five and eliminated the justices' circuit duties. To replace the justices on circuit, the act created sixteen judgeships for six judicial circuits,” (FJC, n.d). This act abolished the Judiciary Act of 1789 and it later led to creating the Judiciary Act of 1802 and 1803 that would change the federal court system. Due to the Judiciary Act of 1789 being unconstitutional, it created the judicial review that would allow the Supreme Court to decide which laws were unconstitutional. In other words, it gave the Supreme Court the authority to review and interpret the federal laws. The Marbury v. Madison demonstrated the power of the jurisdiction branch and Justice Marshall was able to ensure that the judicial branch is equal with the executive and . legislative branch by creating the judicial review Intent of the Constitution After the case was closed, it appeared that many people had mixed emotions toward Justice Marshall’s decision. Some were questioning why Justice Marshall didn’t side with his own party or why he simply told Marbury that the Supreme Court is unable to hear his case. These questions would come across when discussing the Marbury v. Madison case because it included several aspects that can confuse people. The confusion could be due to the laws that are being addressed and whether Marbury was a judge. This issue arises due to Adams who wanted to appoint many judges before leaving office. If the situation was solved before Adams left

5

Marbury v Madison

office, then the Marbury v. Madison's case wouldn’t have happened. Despite all these mixed emotions and confusion, Justice Marshall made a decision that would affect the U.S. Supreme court system. If Justice Marshall ignored that the Constitution limits the government powers, then the court system today wouldn't have a judicial review. However, Justice Marshall didn’t have the power to say that the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional because it is the legislator who can change the constitution and write laws. “Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress, through a joint resolution passed by a two-thirds vote, or by a convention called by Congress in response to applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures,” (United States Senate, n.d). Even though Justice Marshall wasn’t in the position to call an act unconstitutional, he did make a decision that comply with the Constitution. In other words, he fulfilled his duty as . a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which is to abide by the law

6

Marbury v Madison References

Cornell Law School. n.d. U.S. Constitution: Article III. Cornell Law School: Legal Information Institute. Retrieved https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii FJC. n.d. Federal Judicial Center: Landmark Legislation: Judiciary Act of 1801. Retrieved https://www.fjc.gov/history/legislation/landmark-legislation-judiciary-act-1801 UMKC School of Law. n.d. The Judiciary Act (Section 13). Retrieved the judiciary act of 1789 section 13 United States Senate. n.d. Amending the Constitution. Retrieved https://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Constitution_vrd.htm...