Comparison : Madbury versus Madison (1803) and Mc Collough versus Maryland (1819) - Essay Example

Download file to see previous pages... Marbury filed a suit before the Supreme Court on its original jurisdiction and prayed for a writ of Mandamus to be passed, ordering Madison to deliver him the signed commission (Levinson and Balkin 3). The questions or legal issues that were to be decided in this case were, whether the applicant had a right to the commission he demanded, whether the country can afford him a remedy and lastly, whether the remedy provided by the court will be in the form of Mandamus (William Marbury vs. James Madison). The case arose out of dispute between two political parties, which were the Federalists, primarily led by Alexander Hamilton on the one hand and on the second hand the Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and others (Levinson and Balkin 3). Jefferson and fellow Republicans were not pleased with the Federalists, who were trying to safeguard their political power by packing the court with their own men, before they left their office. The Republicans vowed to fix the wrong which had been done by Republicans (MountJoy & Mc Neese 27-28). This ultimately led to the battle in the form of Madbury vs. Madison in the US Supreme Court, Now coming to the case of Mc Culloch vs. Maryland, the parties to this suit were Mc Culloch who is the Appellant in this case, whereas, the State of Maryland is the defendant (Mc Culloch vs. Maryland). The State of Maryland had enacted a statute imposing a tax on all the banks, which were operating in Maryland and were not chartered by the state. The statute provided that all such banks will not have the power to issue note and can only issue them by purchasing the paper to be issued by the state (Mc Culloch vs. Maryland). The cashier of the Baltimore branch of the second bank of the United States, which was established by the 1816 Act of the Congress, issued bank notes without complying with the Maryland law. Maryland sued Mc Culloch to pay taxes and Mc Culloch contested the constitutionality of the Act (Mc Culloch vs. Maryland). The issues in this case were whether the congress had power to incorporate a bank, even when the power is not specifically stated by the constitution and whether the State of Maryland had the power to tax an institution created by its own power granted by the constitution (Mc Culloch vs. Maryland). The Supreme Court held in this case that the Congress had power under the Constitution to incorporate a bank, that the State of Maryland did not have the power to tax an institution created by the congress pursuant to its powers under the constitution and the Act passed by Maryland to levy taxes was unconstitutional (Mc Culloch vs. Maryland). Despite the fact that the above two cases are distinct and stretched over two different time period, having different subject matter and facts, the two cases have certain things in common. Firstly, both the cases were on constitutional law and required interpretation of the constitution. Secondly, both the cases were initiated in the same period of time, which is the early 19th century. Thirdly, both the cases had supreme importance and were landmark cases in the history of the United States, in the sense that both the cases decided important issues. Madbury vs. Madison showed and recognized that the courts had power of judicial ...Download file to see next pagesRead More