Marbury v. Madison, the Madisonian Vision, and the Supremacy Clause - Case Study Example

Marbury v. Madison, the Madisonian Vision and the Supremacy Clause Marbury v. Madison, the Madisonian Vision and the Supremacy Clause The Marbury v. Madison forms the basis for the establishment for the judicial review. The judicial review is a power of the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court granted itself this power in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. The purpose of this feat was to give the Court power to assess and review the constitutionality of acts that were approved and conceded by the Congress or those acts that the President had approved (Jordan, 1999). In reference to this, the Supremacy Clause affirms and founds the authenticity and the importance of the Constitution over all other treaties and acts in the country. The view is further supported by the interpretation of Madison’s theory by Professor Bell, suggesting that the judgment of Congress or national consensus among state legislatures should receive more deference than the judgment of one or a few states. This paper reviews analyses the consequences of the Marbury v. Madison case and the establishment of the judicial review and the Due Process Clause in the context of the Supremacy Law. The Supremacy Law is presented as a criminal procedure that relates to surveillance. The Article VI of the Constitution is analyzed from Madison’s point of view. In one of the most famous lines of the Marbury v. Madison of 1803, the Supreme Court made a very historical statement; the Court declared it “emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is” (Bell, 2004). Therefore the Court called all the statues that were not consistent with the Constitution as null and void and went on to cancel and annul a federal statute. As a result, the Court assumed an indomitable power over the elected representatives of the people and made their decisions as secondary in importance if they were not agreeing with the Constitutional articles. However the authority that the Court donned during the Marbury v. Madison case brings up a number of questionable implications for the Judiciary. This is mainly because the Constitution does not contain a very detailed account of how the Articles are to be carried out and how different state procedures are to be dealt with. It is a general guide to the enforcement of law in the country and other various facets of governance. Thereby it follows that the Constitution needs to be interpreted flexibly in order to accommodate changes in the political milieu. Madison is notably famous for the role he played in writing the Constitution and forcing the opponents to accept it. He was of the view that the geographic spread of the country would be of benefit to it. This would help in fighting off and averting any chances of dictatorship since the country is broken into segments and these segments would help to keep a check on the usage of power and resources as well as any abuse of these elements. He favored the development of a federal legislative process which was built by two legislative bodies that were elected by different constituencies and at different times, with a president regulating the two bodies (Bell, 2004). During the time that the Constitution was drafted, the theories were not given due importance. However over the years many critics assert that Madison’s theories have gathered a lot of substance. In fact, Robert Dahl stated that Madison’s theories are representative of the current political process and that the country is made more from minorities than from a majority of a particular class of people (Bell, 2004). However despite the assertion by a number of critics regarding the Madisonian vision as being helpful in interpreting statutes and constitutional doctrines, some people are dubious of his theories. One of the reasons for their skepticism is that Madison’s theories try to project a public interest which they clearly lack. Moreover, some critics are of the view that his theory that minorities will have dominance over majorities regardless of the strength of the debates that they present. Another criticism that is raised with regard to his theories is that certain legislatures are not held completely accountable and this makes them disloyal to popular will (Bell, 2004). The Madison’s theory does hold much credence in the contemporary world. It is cumbersome to establish its validity in the modern context. The emergence of a number of political parties and the advancements in mass communications has augmented the debate against the relevance of the Madisonian point of view in the current era. This has further been compounded by decrease in the regional segmentation of the economy. As a result, Madison’s theories do not offer much ground regarding safeguard and advancement of the constitutional interests of the country. However, Bell (2004) also contends that the population of USA has increased over the years, and the geographical area populated by people has also extended. This has created a more racial and ethnically diverse population and an economy, which is although not very segmented on the regional level, but is definitely more diverse than before (Bell, 2004). The changes that have impregnated the political scenario may have an impact on the viability of the theories that Madison presented; however there are certain institutions where these theories have “certain implications for the types of institutions that we prefer to make constitutional judgments” (Bell, 2004). According to Bell, Madison’s theories are indicative of the notion that legislative actions should be granted more deference than executive action, as well as the judgment of Congress or national consensus among state legislatures should be given more deference than the judgment of one or a few states and that the decisions of the local governments mandate exacting scrutiny (Bell, 2004). The Supremacy Clause states that (“CRS Annotated Constitution,” 2010): This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”. According to the Clause, the Supreme Court held the power to make a state constitutional or statutory provision ineffective and worthless if it was not in line with a treaty that the Federal Government had put into effect and endorsed (“Article VI,” n.d.). This view is supported by Madisonian vision as well, since it implies that the legislative actions should be given more deference than executive action. The legislative is preferred over the executive (Bell, 2004). Executive officials are subject to the same electoral requirements and obligations that legislators are. In fact, according to Professor Jerry Marshaw, the President has to undergo much more electoral scrutiny than executive officials since the presidential elections are more inclusive of issues than executive ones. However there is a supermajority consensus associated with the legislative process as opposed to the executive process; the executive branch decision-making is not inclusive of this consensus. This degree of difference can be overstated without much difficulty apropos to certain executive decision-making processes. For instance it may take agencies very long periods of time to enact a decision and to promulgate regulations; promulgation of regulation consumes times because the agencies have to wait for the comments of the public before proceeding with the enforcement of the decision. However the agencies have the power to take decisions regarding their issues even in situations when the Congress is not functional such as in a deadlock. This is made possible due to the hierarchal organization of the agencies giving the legislative authorities protection from the dictatorship of the majority. This can be exemplified by the case of the HIPAA of 1966, where the Congress devised a deadline for the promulgation of the regulation. The Congress came up with a deadline for the promulgation of the privacy rules of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1966. If this deadline was not met, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had the authority to promulgate the rules according to what it thought best. The result was that the Congress failed to promulgate the regulations till the expected deadline. Consequently, the HHS took over and promulgated the regulations although a significant amount of time has passed by then (Bell, 2004). The aforementioned example of the HHS making decisions when the Congress could not meet the deadline is representative of the authority that the legislators have been granted. This advances Madison’s theories that the obligation that the supporters of government action generate consensus within the group of authorities that are representing varied interests helps to grant the legislative structures which are in minority shielding from the dictatorial consensus of the majority (Bell, 2004). The Supremacy Law in article VI declares that all the laws and treaties that the government makes should be the supreme law of the land. This also serves to provide the minorities protection over the tyranny of the majority. In the Marbury vs. Madison case, the Supreme Court established the authority of the judiciary over all other forms of government bodies. The judicial review refers to the notion that the principles of the Constitutions will be adhered to completely and that the judges who have been given proper training in this law are qualified and competent enough to be trusted and to uphold the laws and regulations as put forth by the Constitution. It can be deduced that the judicial review provides the judicial aspect of the government, especially the Supreme Court, the authority to establish the constitutionality of all laws (“Guidance Associates,” 2010). In the case of Marbury vs. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall was caught in a tough call that asked him to deliver a decision regarding a conflict between the legislative and the executive departments of the government (“Guidance Associates,” 2010). Marshall gave rise to the concept of Federal Supremacy. This means that the federal government has the authority to put its power into effect and overrule any conflicting statute or provision of the state government that does not concede with that of the federal government. Before the appointment of Marshall to the bench, the Supremacy Clause did exist, granting the federal government power over any inconsistent state provision. Marshall’s appointment to the Bench and his role in the decisions of some landmark cases establishes the Supremacy Clause as the sovereign law that gives the federal government the right to determine the constitutionality of all the laws. Marshall is significant for his contribution to the promotion of the full significance of the clause as applicable to the laws of the Congress (“CRS Annotated Constitution,” 2010). In the McCulloch v. Maryland case, Marshall stated that the “the States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government. This is, we think, the unavoidable consequence of that supremacy which the Constitution has declared” (“CRS Annotated Constitution,” 2010). Federalism is embedded in the Constitution and is looked upon as a Madisonian device (“Federalism,” n.d.). The Union has an advantage over the states that it controls. The impact of a group of these factious leaders may be vibrant enough to lead to a spark; however this spark may not be large enough to initiate a fire. The constitutional basis of federalism is not only depicted in the Supremacy Clause of Article VI as discussed above but also in other articles too. The supremacy of the national government is established by Article I, Section 8, which gives the government many wide powers. The elastic clause states that the governments have the authority to make all laws that it thinks are compulsory and needed by the country. Moreover the authority of the states is also restricted, such as the states are not allowed to participate in activities that are not consistent with the interests of the government. This gives the states limited powers that do not influence national decisions (“Federalism,” n.d.). The due process clause of the 14th Amendment mandates the application of the Bill of Rights to the states (“Federalism,” n.d.). The Due Process refers to the principle that the government must take steps to ensure that the legal rights of the citizens are to be protected and that the people are protected from the state. The 14th Amendment is inclusive of the view of selective incorporation. Selective incorporation states that the provisions of the Bill of Rights are essential to the American legal system and that these are to be followed and observed by the states by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. In this case, the Supreme Court has the authority to selectively enforce certain amendments as prescribed in the 14th Amendment (Harr & Hess, 2008). This also attests to the authority of the Supreme Court over the state authorities. Thus in conclusion, one can establish that the Marbury vs. Madison case was the pioneer of judicial review. Marshall was of the view that the Constitution has embedded in it the authority and the supremacy of the judicial review. It is in written form and therefore gives the Court the power to make decisions regarding conflicts that occur under the Constitution, giving the federal laws precedence and authority over the state provisions (Vile, 2010). In the case, the Supreme Court assumed the role of the “ultimate interpreter of the US Constitution” (Pohlman, 2004). However over the time, as Bell (2004) observes, the Court has come to recognize its authority to determine what the laws say and its restriction as the protector of the constitutional rules and regulations. Since the Court has faced dire consequences twice in history when it had tried to establish its supremacy over state actors, it has come to accept its dependence on other constitutional actors. Thus it has accepted that it is not just the federal judiciary but also “the people” whom it needs to work in concert with for the progress and well-being of the country (Bell, 2004). Reference List Article VI (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/016.pdf Bell, B. W. (2004). Madbury v. Madison and the Madisonian Vision. The Law Washington Law Review 72, 197-252. CRS Annotated Constitution. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art6_user.html Federalism. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://longovt.com/Federalism_AP.ppt Guidance Associates. (2010). Guidance Associates Award Winning DVDs and Videos for Schools and Businesses. Retrieved from http://www.guidanceassociates.com/sucodethchna.html Harr, J. S. & Hess, K. M. (2008). Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System. Thomas Learning Inc. Jordan, T. L. (1999). The U.S. Constitution: and fascinating facts about it (7th ed.). Oak Hill Publishing Company. Pohlman, H. L. (2004). Constitutional debate in action: Governmental powers (2nd ed.). Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Vile, J. R. (2010). A Companion to the United States Constitution and Its Amendments (5th ed.). California: ABC-CLIO. Read More