Marbury v. Madison and its Effects on the United States Today - Term Paper Example

? Marbury v. Madison and its effects on the United s today August 22, Introduction Before Marbury v. Madison, the Rule of Law has not been widely applied by the Supreme Court, especially in the chaotic legislative and government-building times of the early 1800s. The ruling of the Marbury v. Madison has then deeply embedded judicial review, as a vital element of the constitutional system of the American government (Eastman, 2005, p.714). In addition, before 1801, the Supreme Court had not significantly participated in resolving constitutional questions that entailed interpreting the boundaries of authority of the new government (Henderson, 2010, p.42). The rising power of Adams-appointed Marshall also pushed the judiciary into the political struggle between Federalists and Republicans and made the Marbury v. Madison a critical pawn in the government's political chess (Henderson, 2010, p.43). This paper summarizes the facts and decision in the Marbury v. Madison and explores the effects of its ruling on the United States today. It argues that the Marbury v. Madison emphasized the role of the independent judiciary, separation of the judiciary from political squabbles, and the importance of checks-and-balances in the American government. Marbury v. Madison: A summary As his term ended, President John Adams had made a number of federal appointments, including William Marbury, as justice of the peace in the District of Columbia, in the process known as “midnight appointments.” Thomas Jefferson, the new president, noticed the pile of documents related to these appointments and refused to recognize them, including Marbury's appointment. The Secretary of State James Madison should have delivered these appointments, but he followed Jefferson and did not deliver Marbury's commission (Henderson, 2010, p.59). Marbury sued Madison, and the Supreme Court handled the case. Chief Justice John Marshall, a cousin of Jefferson, but appointed by John Adams, handled the case. The main issue is that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 provided the Supreme Court the “authority to issue writs of mandamus” (Henderson, 2010, p.60). It was not clear, however, if this part of the 1789 statute could be considered as constitutional (Henderson, 2010, p.60). The primary question is that: Could Congress, based on the 1789 law, broaden the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as indicated in Article III of the Constitution? Article III clearly stated that: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to Law and Fact” (qtd. in Henderson, 2010, p.60). Marshall argued that according to the Judiciary Act of 1789, delivering these commissions for judges and justices was unconstitutional, since it provided higher authority to the Supreme Court, which infringed on Article III of the Constitution. The Congress did not have the authority to expand the powers of the Supreme Court. Hence, the Supreme Court ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional and should not be followed. Since the law that provided authority to the Court in issuing writs of mandamus was void, the Court could not give a writ of mandamus and Marbury v. Madison had been dismissed. Effects of the Marbury v. Madison Independence of the Judiciary Marbury v. Madison asserted the role of an independent judiciary in having the “last word in law and the Constitution” (Sloan & McKean, 2009, p.49). Chief Justice Marshall established the Court's authority “to say what the law is” (Lively, 2000, p.392) and not have the executive and legislative power dictate how the law should be interpreted by the judiciary. This case is a landmark case, because it emphasizes the power of the judicial review in aligning laws with the Constitution. Marshall provided a “narrow” interpretation of the limits of Congress, where laws that provide excess power to that which has been delegated cannot bind the courts at all (Eastman, 2005, p.717). Marshall said that “an act of the legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, is void. This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently considered by this court, as one of the fundamental principles of our society” (qtd. in Henderson, 2010, p.60). The Supreme Court will then have the power to veto these laws that are deemed as unconstitutional. Alexander Hamilton stressed this too in Federalist 78: The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like... (Eastman, 2005, p.717). Like Hamilton, Marshall aimed to limit the powers of the national government in advancing its own powers over that of the states and individual rights. Due to Marbury v. Madison, it has become clear that all laws are subject to judicial reviews. These new laws must be constitutional, or else, they should be vetoed. Many laws that aim to expand government powers, but violate the constitution have been questioned and repealed. Acts that aim to provide greater powers to the Courts or Congress or the President are also submitted to judicial reviews to ensure their constitutional vigor. Hence, Marbury protected the people from abuses from any of the government branches or a collusion among them. Judiciary's Separation from Political Games Marbury v. Madison is an example of how the judiciary should also separate itself from the political problems of the nation (Sloan & McKean, 2009, p.49). Numerous people anticipated that Marshall would give the Federalists the outcome they wanted, such as the appointment of Marbury (Sloan & McKean, 2009, p.49). Marshall, nevertheless, evaded political partisanship and focused on the merits of the judicial review (Sloan & McKean, 2009, p.49). This reminds President Obama and Democrats in Congress that being part of the majority does not mean that they could also win the cases and votes they needed (Sloan & McKean, 2009, p.49). They still have to consider the constitutional merits of their cases and propositions (Sloan & McKean, 2009, p.49). Schotten (2004) argued that one of the main implications of Marbury is that Marshall prevented “future political crises” by underscoring that “the Supreme Court [is] the constitutional umpire of the American political system” (p.134). Schotten (2004) stressed that Marshall's ruling ensured the survival of both the Constitution and the democratic government system. Marshall wanted to promote the notion of the “limited government” without intrusion from squabbling political parties and personalities (Schotten, 2004, p.135). Nelson (2002) underscored that Marshall tried to “disregard” the animosity of partisan politics and followed rules that will adjudicate the case using “a nonmajoritarian standard” (p.248). Marshall controlled the growing tide of majoritarian decision-making style, which he feared would hurt the rule of the law and provide too much power to popular will (Henderson, 2010, p.60). Though Jefferson did not fully agree with the rationale of the decision, he stressed that the Supreme Court should indeed act and think as a separate entity from the executive and legislative branches of the government and that to do so was essential to the Constitution (Henderson, 2010, p.62). Marbury guaranteed the role of Supreme Court in acting as a fair umpire in the government system. The government remains to be composed of people with partisanship lines and it is important for the judiciary to assert a non-biased role in conducting its affairs. This ruling underlined that the Court should distance itself from political lines and remain focused on their judicial roles. Checks-and-Balances and Its Importance to a Fair Democratic Government Marbury v. Madison emphasized the importance of checks-and-balances in the American government. The ruling indicated the “perfect equality between the three branches of government” (Eastman, 2005, p.719). Hamilton expressed this in Federalist 49: “The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission” shows that “neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers...” (Eastman, 2005, p.719). Marshall's ruling in Marbury demonstrated that when Congress interpreted its own powers, it could not force the judiciary to be inferior to the legislative branch (Eastman, 2005, p.719). The Court will have the authority to stop laws that expand powers beyond what is considered as constitutional. In addition, Marshall and his justices wanted to “reconcile” popular decisions and the rule of the law (Nelson, 2002, p.248). One of the implications of check-and-balance is that the Supreme Court should also check popular will, without necessarily stating that the Court has the sole power in interpreting the Constitution (Nelson, 2002, p.249). Marshall and his justices differed from Cooper v. Aaron, because the Supreme Court of the latter stressed that they are the final arbiters of constitutional decisions (Eastman, 2005, p.717; Nelson, 2002, p.249). Marshall did not support the same thinking by defining the boundaries between the “domain of politics” and “domain of law” (Nelson, 2002, p.249). Marshall's idea of constitutional jurisprudence asserted that the democratic and majoritarian style of legislative and executive branches managed political affairs, while the judiciary decided on legal matters using “government by consensus style” (Nelson, 2002, p.249). Marshall then creatively stopped the majoritarian style from consuming all government branches, so that the judiciary can also make independent decisions on its own that will ensure fair, and not populist, judicial reviews. Furthermore, as part of the checks-and-balance effect of Marbury v. Madison, the ruling rendered federal judges exposed to impeachment (Henderson, 2010, p.63). A Boston newspaper that supported the Republicans cautioned judges of impeachment, if they tried to provide a writ of mandamus to the Secretary of State in the Marbury case (Henderson, 2010, p.62). It followed impeachment proceedings that are still seen in U.S. courts today (Henderson, 2010, p.62). Marbury opened the space for impeaching judges who are not making decisions that support the Constitution. Conclusion Marbury's major effects on present American society are the independence of the judiciary, the power of the judiciary review in adjudicating constitutional questions, and the role of the courts in assuring the operations of checks-and-balances in the government. Marbury v. Madison emphasized the limitations of any single government branch in expanding their powers. It also stressed the boundaries of popular will and partisan politics in dictating judicial interpretation of the law. Finally, Marbury embedded the supremacy of the Constitution in forming future legislative actions that still impact the American government up to now. References Eastman, J.C. (2005). Judicial review of unenumerated rights: Does Marbury's holding apply in a post-Warren court world? Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 28 (3), 713-740. Henderson, P.G. (2010). Marshall vs. Jefferson then and now: How the intellectual and political struggle over the constitution resonates today. Humanitas, 23 (1/2), 42-77. Lively, D.E. (2000). Constitutional law's loose canon: Are we running software without an operating system? Constitutional Commentary, 17 (2), 391-398. Nelson, W.E. (2002). Marbury v. Madison and the establishment of judicial autonomy. Journal of Supreme Court History, 27 (3), 240-256. Schotten, P. (2004). Marbury v. Madison, rightly understood. Perspectives on Political Science, 33 (3), 134-141. Sloan, C. & McKean, D. (2009, March 2). Why Marbury v. Madison still matters. Newsweek, 153 (9), 49. Read More