|
|
|
|
|
Marbury V. Madison | bgcolor="6699FF" | Marbury v. Madison | align="center" | 100px
Supreme Court of the United States | | bgcolor="6699FF" | Decided February 24, 1803 | | {| align="center" | | valign="top"| Full case name: | ''William Marbury v. James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States | | valign="top"| Citations: | 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60; 1803 U.S. LEXIS 352 | | valign="top"| Prior history: | Original action filed in U.S. Supreme Court; order to show cause why writ of mandamus should not issue, December, 1801 | | valign="top"| Subsequent history: | none | } | | bgcolor="6699FF" | Holding | | Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was void because it granted greater jurisdiction to the Supreme Court than the Constitution permitted. Congress could not pass valid legislation that was contrary to the Constitution, and it was the role of the federal courts to interpret what the Constitution permitted. | | bgcolor="6699FF" | Court membership | | {| align="center" | | Chief Justice John Marshall | | Associate Justices William Cushing, William Paterson, Samuel Chase, Bushrod Washington, Alfred Moore | } | | bgcolor="6699FF" | Case opinions | | {| align="center" | | Majority by: Marshall | | Joined by: Cushing, Paterson, Chase, Washington, Moore | } | | bgcolor="6699FF" | Laws applied | | U.S. Const. Art. I, III; Judiciary Act of 1789 13 | Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law wherein the U.S. Supreme Court established judicial review as a legitimate power of the Court on constitutional grounds. The Court ruled that it had the power to declare a statute void that it considered in contravention to the Constitution. Marbury established the judiciary—and in particular, the Supreme Court—as an equal partner among the three branches of the American federal government. The Background In the Presidential election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams, becoming the third U.S. President. Although the election was decided on February 17, 1801, Jefferson did not take office until March 4, 1801. Until that time, Adams and the Federalist-controlled U.S. Congress were still in power. Congress passed a new Judiciary Act, creating a number of new courts to be controlled by Federalists. On March 2, Adams appointed 42 Federalists to these courts while sitting as a lame duck less than a week before the end of his term. The following day, on March 3, the judges were approved by the Senate. One of these "Midnight Judges" was William Marbury, appointed to a position as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia. At noon, Adams left office and Jefferson was inaugurated as President. Marbury's commission, as well as that of others who were part of the lawsuit, was signed by Adams and John Marshall, his Secretary of State. As a complication of matters, Marshall had been appointed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on February 4, but had continued to act as Secretary of State until Jefferson was inaugurated. On March 3, Marshall became Chief Justice, and swore in Jefferson. Jefferson treated as void the 42 commissions approved on Inauguration Day, including Marbury's, because they had not been officially delivered by day's end. He appointed James Madison as the new Secretary, and ordered him not to deliver the Marbury commission. At this point in the Country's history, the Supreme Court had very limited powers. Chief Justice Marshall knew that if the Court decided for Marbury, Jefferson would almost certainly ignore the decision—a result that would further erode the court's authority. Such a result arguably occurred about 30 years later when Marshall ruled in Worcester v. Georgia, and President Andrew Jackson refused to compel the state of Georgia to abide by the decision. He is famously supposed to have said, "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it." Although Marbury v. Madison was the first case asserting the power of judicial review, it was not a power that the Court initially exercised with frequency. It was not until Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857 that the Supreme Court invalidated another act of Congress. However, the Court treated the decision with deference: between 1804 and 1894, Marbury was cited in 49 separate opinions in the United States Supreme Court. Of these, 24 citations extend or reiterate Marbury's jurisdictional holding. It should be noted that when Jeffersonian Republicans and Jacksonian Democrats launched attacks on the Court, they did so with a belief that congressional or presidential interpretations of the Constitution were entitled to as much respect as those of the Court. The case In this case, Marbury brought the lawsuit directly in the Supreme Court, under the Judiciary Act of 1789. The requested remedy was an order (known as a writ of mandamus) directed against James Madison, the new Secretary of State, to transmit the commission to Marbury. The issues Ostensibly, the questions before the Court were three: - Did Marbury have a right to the appointment?
- Do the laws of the country give Marbury a legal remedy?
- Is asking the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus the correct legal remedy?
The court, through Chief Justice Marshall, held that Marbury had a valid commission, good for five years. The question was whether the law gave him a remedy. The answer to that question was yes, because the refusal to deliver his commission to Marbury violated his right for which there had to be a remedy. The question then shifted to whether the Supreme Court was entitled to provide that remedy. Traditionally, issues of jurisdiction are addressed first. If a court does not have the power to hear a case, it will not issue dicta. Chief Justice Marshall, however, did not address jurisdictional issues until addressing the first two questions presented above. The decision The decision was rendered on February 24, 1803, in a unanimous 6-0 decision. In analyzing the case, Marshall, speaking for the Court, examined the Judiciary Act of 1789, which stated that the Supreme Court could "issue writs of mandamus in cases...to any persons holding office under the authority of the United States." The Constitution, the Supreme Court held, confined its original jurisdiction—the ability to hear cases in the first instance—to "all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state be a party. In all other cases the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction." Marshall reasoned that "if this Court is not authorized to issue a writ of mandamus to such an officer, it must be because the law is unconstitutional, and therefore absolutely incapable of conferring the authority and assigning the duties which its words purport to confer and assign." Although Marbury brought his case directly to the Supreme Court in accordance with the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Supreme Court declined to issue the writ because it had no original power to do so—it could only review such cases on appeal from lower courts. The Court held that Congress had no power to alter their original jurisdiction and found the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. The section of the opinion that discusses judicial review first observed, "The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States." The Court later reasoned, "The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it." Once the Constitution's superiority is accepted, then, "If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it effect?" By answering this question in the negative, Marshall established the Courts as capable of participating in the checks and balances of United States government. The opinion's brilliance lies in the way it simultaneously asserted the Court's power to hold acts of Congress unconstitutional and yet avoided a direct confrontation with the President. By giving up the power of original jurisdiction in cases not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, it seized the power of judicial review. Politically, Jefferson was forced into a corner: either agree with the ruling and use it as a justification to continue denying the Midnight Judges their commissions, or disagree with the very ruling that legitimized his action. Sources and further reading - Marbury v. Madison. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm
- Nelson, William E. Marbury v. Madison: The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review. University Press of Kansas: 2000. ISBN 0700610626.
- Clinton, Robert Lowry. Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review. University Press of Kansas: 1991. ISBN 0700605177. (Presents a contrarian reading of the case, claiming that it is a mistake to read the case as claiming a judicial power to tell the President or Congress what they can or cannot do under the Constitution. The conventional reading of Marbury interprets it as granting a much broader scope of judicial authority.)
External links
|
 |
|
| Copyright 2005-2009 OnPedia.com. All Rights Reserved |
|
|