Marbury versus Madison - Definition, Summary - Case Study Example

Summary and Review Of Cases The Marbury v. Madison case concerns the issue of the Presidential appointment power. Marbury was appointed, as the Peace Justice in the Colombian District, the outgoing president John Adams. The incoming President, President Jefferson, then ordered Madison, who was the Secretary of State by that time, to turn down the appointment of Marbury. Marbury struggled to issue a writ of Mandamus against Madison while applying a law that was passed by the Federalist congress (Tushnet 13). The case extended up to the Supreme Court, where it was presided over by John Marshall, who was Addams appointee. President Jefferson considered he had fixed Marshall, since if he went against Marbury, it will negatively represent Adams and at the same time, most likely to appear as a political reason if he decided to act against Jefferson. Marshall, on the other hand, out-foxed Jefferson. Judging without consideration, he subjected an opinion against Marbury. Marshall disputed that the Federalist congress had acted contrary to the constitution in giving out total powers to the court to issue a writ of mandamus (Tushnet 18). In this case, he enlarged the Courts power by giving it the judicial review power. The power to proclaim the acts of congress was unconstitutional. In summary, Marshall won the case, but lost the battle. The court indeed decided that Marbury had the right to his commission. Marshal, however, wrote the dissertation opinion, which stated that the congress did not have the powers to grant the court the powers to issue an order that was awarding Marbury his commission and only such powers could be accorded by the U.S. Constitution. Finally, Justice concluded that the Supreme Court has the final decision over the constitution meaning. The Right of Privacy case concerning Griswold v. Connecticut was primarily about Connecticut law that forbade the people from using any instrument, pharmaceuticals or medicine to serve as contraception for pregnancy (Johnson 241). The case also revolved around Estele Griswold, a woman who was the director of Planned Parenthood in the Connecticut State. She was arrested for violating the Connecticut law. This Planned Parenthood was an organization that was primarily concerned with educating the women on issues of safe sexual behaviors and endorsement of responsibilities concerning sex (Kommers, John & Gary 46). The most significant aim of this organization was to prevent unnecessary pregnancies and transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). In Griswold v. Connecticut case, the State’s Planned Parenthood section was charged for defying the previously cited State Law: The Planned Parenthood was charged for promoting and distributing the use of prophylactics. The case also dealt with the due process clause, which was the government’s responsibility to uphold, respect and advocate for the officially authorized rights of American citizens (Johnson 242). The U.S. government is required to maintain a person’s rights and freedoms. It was mandatory that the U.S. government should treat its citizens with fair and considerate manner. Responding to her arrest, Griswold argued that the Connecticut State dishonored her 14th Amendment rights, as well as her right to privacy (Kommers, John & Gary 47). Griswold, in Griswold v. Connecticut case, maintained that the State’s Laws violated her private liberty that she was assured as an American citizen. Griswold v. Connecticut case was determined on June 7,1965 and was heard in the United States Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme court changed the Connecticut law, which did not permit the use of prophylactics as contraception (Johnson 241). Supreme Court ruled out that the right to privacy of Griswold was in direct violation by the Connecticut law inside a confidential location. The U.S. Supreme Court issued the majority opinion and further explained that Ninth amendment contained, in the U.S. Constitution, serves as a defense with consideration to the Bill of Rights. In respect to this amendment, Griswold won the majority vote (Johnson 243).The U.S. Supreme Court decided to extend the values of Griswold outside its exacting details. The "right to privacy," in Griswold, was suggested to only be relevant to maternal affairs. The case in Eisenstaedt was that it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to disagree with free couples on the rights to use contraception when actually the free couples did have that right (Kommers, John & Gary 47). On writing for the common, Justice Brennan written that Massachusetts would possibly not implements the law against married couples for the reason being that of Griswold v. Connecticut (Kommers, John & Gary 47). Therefore, the law performed "irrational discrimination" if not extended to single couples, as well. Associate Justice Potter Stewart (1973), in support of Roe v. Wade, quoted the analysis and verbal communication for both Griswold and Eisenstaedt in the compatible judgment (Hull & Peter 154).The judgment in Roes’ case did not agree with the Texas law that illegalized helping a woman to get an abortion. The Courts judgment was that this particular law was an infringement of the Fourteenth Amendment Clause. The law was abolished and authorized abortion for any woman for any motive up throughout the first trimester. This was only acceptable with potential limitations for maternal health in the intermediate of which was the estimated occasion of fetal possibility, and probably illegitimate in the third with omission for the mothers health, which the court defined generally in Doe v. Bolton (McBride 173). Justice Kennedys opinion majorly cited the significance of freedom that is secluded in the due process of the Fourteenth Amendment. He ruled that the Texas’ anti-sodomy statute touched upon the most private human behavior, sexual conduct, and in the most secret places, the home, and even challenged to control a private relationship that was within the liberty of people to decide with not being punished (Hull & Peter 221). Therefore, the Court detained that adults are at liberty to take part in private, consensual sexual behavior. In conclusion, if I were one of the Justices, I would have voted on each case on the support of those who won the cases respectively. This was to be according to the constitutional requirements of the United States of America. I will vote in favor of Marbury on the right of his commission since the Congress had the powers to grant the courts powers to issue orders as per the constitution. I will also rule in favor of Griswold since, according to the constitution, the Connecticut law had violated the privacy life of Griswold. Finally, according to the U.S. Constitution, the privacy right does not grant someone the right to abortion. Works Cited Hull, N E. H, and Peter C. Hoffer. Roe V. Wade: The Abortion Rights Controversy in American History. Lawrence, Kan: University Press of Kansas, 2010. Print. Johnson, John W. Griswold V. Connecticut: Birth Control and the Constitutional Right of Privacy. Lawrence, Kan: University Press of Kansas, 2005. Print. Kommers, Donald P, John E. Finn, and Gary J. Jacobsohn. American Constitutional Law: Essays, Cases, and Comparative Notes. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004. Print. McBride, Dorothy E. Abortion in the United States: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO, 2007. Print. Tushnet, Mark V. Arguing Marbury V. Madison. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Law and Politics, 2005. Print. Read More