Marbury v. Madison
Marbury v. Madison,5 U.S.137 (1801): The Decision of PowersThe Federalists carried the majority of the power in the 1800 election, both in the Congress and the election of John Adams as President. The following election, it became apparent that the Federalists would lose control of the Presidency and thus the majority of Congress. Before Adams lost his position as President to Thomas Jefferson, he made an attempt to control Congress by passing the Judiciary Act of 1801. This Act created new courts in the District of Columbia so that Adams could fill the courts with Federalists, which he continued to do up until the last hour of his Presidency.Some of the commissions were not delivered before Adams vacated his office. One of which was meant for William Marbury appointing him to a circuit court in Washington D.C. The new Secretary of State, James Madison refused to hand over Marbury's commission as well as a few others. Marbury filed a suit against Madison seeking a writ of mandamus forcing Madison to hand over the commission. The case was brought directly before the Supreme Court.While each court had specific delegated powers, it was unclear as to what process would be used if one of the branc
One, Did Marbury have the right to the commission he was demanding? Two, If he did have a right to the commission, was there a way to remedy the violation of his right to the commission? And three, if it was found he did in fact have the right to the commission, how would the court go about granting the commission and therefore reversing the violation which had been committed against Marbury?Court Decision The Supreme Court, lead by Justice Marshall, decided that since Marbury had been appointed to the circuit and his appointment was approved by the Senate that he did in fact have a right to the commission. Rationale for the DecisionAccording to Justice Marshall, if the Constitution did not specify who should issue the writs, if the court exercised the right, they would be violating the law. Since the Constitution and the law are conflicting, it is up to the courts to decide which should be followed. Marbury's commission was signed by the president, and sealed by the secretary of state and he was entitled to the appointment. edu/madison/center/main_pages/madison_archives/era/judicial/judicial. Basically the court had no right to make a new law just to suit the needs of one branch over another. Comments The main question in this case, was whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law. To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions would be absurd. hes overstepped the guidelines set forth in the Constitution. According to Jefferson, there was nothing in the Constitution which has gave that power to the Supreme Court more than to the Executive or Legislative branches. If the Constitution is the law of the land and something is conflict with that law of the land, then that something is illegal. The Supreme Court had to deal with three separate Constitutional issues in this case. The law in place stated he had a right to the commission; however, The Supreme Court had no power to issue the writ of mandamus, as it would be overstepping its rights.
Common topics in this essay:
Supreme Court,
Constitution Marbury's,
Executive Legislative,
Justice Marshall,
James Madison,
Marshall Constitution,
Columbia Adams,
Court Issue,
Judiciary Act,
Constitution Constitution,
supreme court,
issue writs,
constitution law,
court issue,
writ mandamus,
supreme court issue,
power issue,
justice marshall,
appellate jurisdiction,
issue writ,
court power,
issue writ mandamus,
court power issue,
power issue writ,
court issue writs,
|
Acceptance Essays
