The Case Marbury V. Madison - Essay Example

 The Case Marbury V. Madison Summary of the case In the last weeks in office after President John Adams lost his re-election bid to Thomas Jefferson in the year 1800, the Federalist Congress decided to increase the number of the courts of circuit, which created new positions that were filled by Federalist Judges commissioned by President Adams. One of the justices named William Marbury, decided filing a writ of mandamus in the Court of Supreme, requiring James Madison, the Secretary of State to deliver the new appointments, which the court of supreme led by John Marshall rejected on grounds that the move was unconstitutional under some part of the Judiciary Act of 1979 (Marbury versus Madison, 1803). Thus, this historic case created the concept of Judicial Review or the capability of the Judiciary declaring a law unconstitutional. The court case hence resulted to the Judiciary, Legislative & Executive branches of the government being on a more even power basis ultimately setting the precedent for an infinite number of future historic decisions (Marbury versus Madison, 1803). Facts On the last day in office, Adams the president commissioned sixteen new justices for the circuit court and forty-two peace justices for the Columbia district in his last day in office under the Organic Act, which was meant taking control of the Judiciary of the Federal government by the Federalists before Thomas Jefferson took office. The commissions were consequently signed by President John Adams & sealed by the then acting State Secretary, John Marshall (author of the opinion of this case) before he becomes the Court of Supreme Chief Justice. However, the commissions were not submitted before the end of John Adams’s term as the president of the U.S. resulting to rejection of the appointments by Thomas Jefferson who termed them as invalid on grounds that they were not submitted before the end of John Adams’s term as the president (Marbury versus Madison, 1803). Therefore, this prompted William Marbury one of the appointees filing a writ of mandamus before the Court of Supreme, which had original jurisdiction issuing writs of mandamus to any persons holding office or courts under the U.S. authority, to compel Madison, the Stare Secretary delivering the new appointments. However, supreme led by John Marshall rejected on grounds that the move was unconstitutional under some part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (Marbury versus Madison, 1803). Issues Does the law award William Marbury a remedy? Does Marbury William have a right to the commission? Does the court of supreme have original jurisdiction issuing writ of mandamus? Does the court of supreme have authority reviewing the Congressional acts to determine if they are unconstitutional hence rendering them void? Can the scope of original jurisdiction of the court of Supreme be expanded by the Congress beyond what is stipulated in the constitution’s Article III? Holding (1) Yes. William Marbury has a remedy granted by the law because the civil liberty gives individuals the right to protection from the government when he/she is injured. (2) Yes. William Marbury has right to appointment because the commission became effective the moment it was signed by President John Adams. (3) No. The court of supreme has no original jurisdiction issuing writ of mandamus but can only do so if it is demonstrated that the issue is imperative enabling the court exercise appellate jurisdiction or the exercise is one of appellate jurisdiction. (4) Yes. The court of supreme has the authority reviewing the Congressional acts to determine if they are unconstitutional hence rendering them void because it is the duty of the judiciary to interpret and determine what the law is. (5) No. The scope of original jurisdiction of court of Supreme cannot be expanded by the Congress beyond what is stipulated in the constitution’s Article III as provided in the constitution, “the court of supreme shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting Consuls, other public ministers, ambassadors and anybody the state shall be a party. In all other cases, the court of supreme shall have appellate jurisdiction.” Ruling Thus, on 24 of February, 1803 Supreme Court led by John Marshall the Chief justice rules on the landmark Marbury vs. Madison case. The court confirms the Judicial Review principle limiting the powers of the congress by declaring the legislation unconstitutional in the modern nation. Therefore, the court decided that the newly elected President Jefferson through his James Madison his secretary of state was wrong preventing William Marbury from assuming office as the peace justice for the District of Columbia’s Washington County. In addition, the court also decided that it had no jurisdiction hence couldn’t compel Jefferson & Madison to allow William Marbury to assume office even though the 1789 Act gave the court the jurisdiction, which it termed as an unconstitutional extension of the powers of the judiciary into the realms of the executive (Marbury versus Madison, 1803). Conclusion The application for the direct writ of mandamus from the court of supreme was denied to Marbury hence he failed getting the commission even though it was determined that he had a right to the commission. However, the court couldn’t compel Madison delivering the commission. Therefore, the case became an important element in the creation of the judicial review concept. Concept of Judicial Review The issue in Marbury vs. Madison case was that nobody knows if the court of supreme received powers from the constitution to invalidate or validate the decisions of other branches of the government. The section 13 of the act of the judiciary states that, the act establishing the U.S. judicial courts allows the court of supreme “to issue writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States” (Judicial Review, n.d.). In addition, Section 2 of the Article III of the constitution states that, “the judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law & Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, & Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty & maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State & Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, & between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects” (Judicial Review, n.d.). Therefore, in the cases affecting Ambassadors, Consuls, other public Ministers and anybody that the government is party to, the court of supreme has the right to original Jurisdiction but shall have appellate Jurisdiction in all other cases presented before it both as to Fact & Law with Exceptions as will be determined by Congress's regulations congress. Thus, it is evident that the constitution doesn't expressly permit for judicial review. Further, it is also possible that the constitution framers thought that such contentious issue would never crop up because the congress would not act ultra vires. In addition, it is probable that the constitution framers assumed that the powers of judicial review were sufficiently vivid from the government’s structure hence needed not being expressly stated. (Judicial Review, nd.). According to Madison’s notes, only eleven out of the fifty-five Constitutional Convention delegates expressed their opinion on the need to have judicial review. Notwithstanding two out of the eleven who expressed their desire for judicial review also opposed the idea for judicial review again. For instance, one of the delegates, James Wilson, stated that, courts should be given even broader power so that they can eliminate unjust state or federal legislation. Further, more than half of the initial states of the United States gave their judges the powers of judicial review to prohibit the decisions of Executive and Legislature from contradicting the supreme law, the constitution as was demonstrated by John Marshall in the Marbury vs. Madison’s case decision (Judicial Review, n.d.). Therefore, in real practice the court of supreme court has since then become recognized as the sole constitutionality arbiter into what many believe is attributed to John Marshall’s principle, which is, it is emphatically the duty of the judiciary and the province interpreting and saying what the law is because decisions made by courts are made in relation to the law, hence the question whether the constitution, which is the written supreme law super-passes the ordinary legislation is unavoidable to the jurist. However, these assertions should not be interpret that the findings of constitutionality forced their way into the domain of the judges because of the cases they decide, but it is through Fact and Law that it is the work of the judiciary interpreting and saying what the law is (Castellano, 2006). Therefore, it is through these findings and decisions of the court in the Marbury vs. Madison case that the concept of Judicial Review was born giving the judiciary the powers declaring a law unconstitutional. Thomas Jefferson Quote Interpretation I believe the writer feels that President Jefferson was certainly trying to warn all people about the threats posed by the black robed masters who are unelected and acting as the sole arbiters of interpreting and saying what the constitutions is. In addition, I believe he was trying to say that, in the event the framers of the constitution’s initial intent is ignored or gets thrown out through the window as liberals in the past did, then the constitution would imply what the court of supreme judges interpret it to be or what the law is and nothing more; implying that their actions would be their own opinions and not the framers intent. Further, I feel that Thomas Jefferson thinks that it is asinine when he hears people using the fact that when both sides are in disagreement with another person, then that person must to some extent be at least moderate or right. Thus, going by the rationale and justifications above, it is evident that President Jefferson’s intention was warning people regarding leaving the sole responsibility of interpreting the constitution and saying what it is, to the judges of the court of supreme an imprudent decision because sometimes their interpretations would only be mere opinions and not the reflection of the intent of the framers. However, in real practice the supreme court has since then become recognized as the sole constitutionality arbiter into what many believe is attributed to John Marshall’s principle, which is, it is emphatically the duty of the judiciary and the province interpreting and saying what the law is because decisions made by courts are made in relation to the law, hence the question whether the constitution, which is the written supreme law super-passes the ordinary legislation is unavoidable to the jurist because Judges’ decisions are made based on law and fact. Chief Justice John Marshall's Claim John Marshall tries to bring out a principle that is inscribed specifically to the United States’ constitution, which states that the “powers of each branch of government are intended to be limited and delineated by the constitution, and not assumed to be absolute or plenary” implying that the constitution should act as a limiting factor regulating the actions of the government (Castellano, 2006). Therefore, the Federal government depicts the above description as articulated by John Marshall because the legislature’s powers are limited and defined and cannot be forgotten or mistaken since the constitution is written thus giving the powers to control and render any law contradicting it null and void. Therefore, why are the powers of the legislature limited and to what degree that the limitation is put in writing in the constitution that they cannot be super-passed by the congress? If this could be the case, the description would not fit the Federal government and the distinction between the actions allowed and prohibited would not exist. It is also vivid that the probability of a description of an unlimited and limited power government would be eliminated hence laying the whole thing bear to be subjected to contest whether the constitution controls any act of the legislature that is repugnant to it or whether the an act of the Congress can alter the constitution (Castellano, 2006). Therefore, it is unacceptable for the Congress to try altering or contradicting the constitution by an ordinary legislation, if controlling the government is anything to go by because alteration would compromise the supremacy of the constitution hence leaving the Congress with unlimited powers. Reviewing the Marbury v. Madison to improve system of checks & balances It is emphatically imperative for court’s ruling on the constitutionality of the Congress's acts proposed jurisprudence rules because in this context, the court isn’t interfering with the legislature powers but is determining the choice of rules to apply in its jurisprudence in the same manner it does when handling contradictory statutes. Therefore, there is nothing in the Marbury v. Madison case, which precludes the probability of the rest of the government branches to make their constitutionality decisions when conducting their activities. Thus, this implies that the Marbury v. Madison case is yet to provide an improved system of balances and checks because sometimes when the court of supreme issues a directive based on its interpretation or declares a law unconstitutional, the executive is obliged at accepting both at the federal and state levels regardless of how stridently they object the court’s ruling. Therefore, the judicial review arguments used in Marbury v. Madison can apply to the rest of the branches of the government by requiring them to conscious of their constitutional right before they comply with unconstitutional acts of other branches of the government. Thus, because the exclusive judicial right determining the constitutionality of the acts of the government can’t be derived from the case of Marbury v. Madison case and the constitution , then constitutional review should be applied to the other branches of the government since the framers of the constitution intended not resolving the power balance questions by awarding the Judiciary branch of the government the sole rights to constitutional review because of their evident failures to explicitly ascribe the powers. Ultimately, it is evident that although the Marbury v. Madison case has not provided the system of balances & checks between the various branches of the government, it helped lay the landmark for judicial review. References: Castellano, D. J. (2006). Marbury v. Madison and the Principle of Judicial Review. Retrieved on Sep. 19, 2014 from: http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/histpoli/marbury.htm. Judicial Review, (n/d). Retrieved on Sep. 19, 2014 from: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/judicialrev.htm. Marbury v. Madison, (1803). Retrieved on Sep. 19, 2014 from: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=5&page=137 Read More