The Marbury vs Madison That Began in 1801 - Essay Example

Street Address ST ZIP e-mail phone fax Marbury Vs. Madison The Marbury vs. Madison case began in 1801. John Adams was retiring from office and had the opportunity to fill some new judgeships that had been created. It was his opportunity to put more Federalists in key positions before his departure from office. The newly appointed individuals received their commissions. But, a mistake was made and newly appointed Justice of the Peace William Marbury did not receive his commission. After John Adams left office and Thomas Jefferson took office Jefferson ordered James Madison to not allow any more Federalists to take office. In the confusion of changing from the Adams administration to the Jefferson administration Marbury’s commission was not delivered. Madison, following Jefferson’s orders, did not deliver the commission but withheld it from Marbury because he was a Federalist. The commission was signed by Adams and all was in order except the commission was not delivered. Marbury was denied his commission and prevented from becoming a Justice of the Peace in Washington. At the time of the Jefferson administrations refusal to deliver the commission to Marbury the Supreme Court had been appointed but was a relatively weak institution. John Marshall (a Federalist and cousin to Jefferson) was the Chief Justice and was appointed by Adams during his administration. Although Jefferson was Marshall’s cousin, both disagreed greatly when it came to politics. Jefferson was a Democratic Republican while Marshall was a Federalist. So, it was assumed that when Marbury brought his case to the Supreme Court he would receive a ruling that, influenced by a Federalist, would benefit him. William Marbury did bring his case directly to the Supreme Court and requested a ruling that included a Writ of Mandamus which forces a government official to follow through with official duties and, in this case, deliver the commission. Marshall was in a tough predicament as he needed to deliver a fair ruling but knew that the Supreme Court had little power. Jefferson could have possibly ignored a ruling that did not benefit his administration further degrading the power of the Supreme Court. Marshall was tasked with answering three questions (from Supreme Court Cases: The Dynamic Court): 1. Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands? 2. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy? 3. If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court? With these questions in mind Marshall deliberated with the court and then delivered the unanimous ruling of the Court. The ruling was given on February 24th of 1803. The ruling concluded that Jefferson and Madison were wrong in denying Marbury the commission as Marbury had a right to the job as Justice of the Peace. Marshall explained that the Judiciary Act of 1789 did allow the Supreme Court to issue Writs of Mandamus. But, he explained that the Judiciary Act was in conflict with the constitution, specifically article 3: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” (U.S. Constuitution, Article 3.) Marshall argued that the Judiciary Act allows the Supreme Court to issue Writs of Mandamus but only in cases that involve ambassadors and foreign consuls. Marshall argued that article 3 of the U.S. Constitution did not apply to ordinary citizens and thus those citizens must take their cases to a lower court. Marshall argued that the Judiciary Act gave power to the Supreme Court that the Constitution did not permit. Marshall explained that when an Act of Congress conflicts with the Constitution the Constitution must be followed. He declared the Judiciary Act of 1789 invalid and unconstitutional and ruled that Marbury, an ordinary citizen, must take his case to a lower court. This ruling gave a weak Supreme Court some power. With this ruling the Supreme Court asserted its power to review acts of Congress and, when applicable, declare unconstitutional and invalid any act that conflicts with the constitution. With the power of judicial review the Supreme Court was positioned to make many other notable rulings. The ruling also established the Supreme Court as the appellate jurisdiction over all other cases. If Marbury had received a ruling not in his favor he would then be able to appeal to the Supreme Court. But, Marbury’s case was not eligible for Supreme Court review as the initial court. The Supreme Court did, even though not required to by the Constitution, ruled that Marbury was entitled to the commission because it was signed by President Adams and sealed by the Secretary of State (signed, sealed, but not delivered). The process of appointing Marbury was complete except for the delivery of the commission. Because he had a legal right to the office and to the commission, the withholding of the commission violated his rights to the office. Although the Court could rule that Marbury was entitled to this position it could not act to require that he be given this position because this would violate the Constitution. It should be noted that the judgeships, signed by Adams at the very end of his term, were not filled by those chosen by Adams. Adams last minute attempt to fill the judiciary with Federalists was thwarted by the Jefferson Administration. The long term effects of the Marbury vs. Madison case were that it helped define the role of the Supreme Court and gave the Supreme Court the power it needed to rule on others case since Marbury vs. Madison. The Supreme Court of that era was under attack by the Republican Congress. The Congress has repealed the Act of 1801 that required the Justices sit for sessions in December and June. Because the Act was repealed the Supreme Court did not have a session until February of 1803. Under threat of impeachment the Supreme Court heard Marbury vs. Madison and declared the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional thus positioning the role of the Supreme Court as interpreter of the Constitution. As interpreter of the Constitution the Supreme Court has gained power over the years as the ruling authority on Constitutional issues. The 1803 Marbury case set the stage for the Supreme Court to rule on such cases as 1819 McCulloch v. Maryland ruling that Congress could charter a national bank and, 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford ruling that declare the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional because it deprived a person of their personal property (slaves). The most important result of Marbury v. Madison is the establishing of the Supreme Court as the authority on Constitutional issues. Jefferson could have chosen to ignore the Court’s ruling thus not supporting the Court’s role. This could have further weakened the court and could have led to the disbanding of the court. But, the authority of the court was upheld and its position as the ultimate authority on Constitutional issues makes it a powerful voice for the country today. Works Cited: “Selected Landmark Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, 1803-2004”. World Almanac & Book of Facts (2006): 586-587 “Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Supreme Court of the United States”. William Cranch, ed., Washington, 1804, pp.137ff “Marbury v Madison.” Supreme Court Cases: The Dynamic Court (1930-1999). (1999):N.PAG “Marbury v. Madison”. Encyclopedia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 2 May 2007 http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9050769 “Marbury v. Madison: a Landmark decision made 200 years ago changed the Supreme Court forever.(American History).” Junior Scholastic 105.11 (Jan 24, 2003). Steven Manning. Eastman, John C. “Judicial Review of Unenumerated Rights: Does Marbury’s Holding Apply in Post – Warren Court World?.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public 28.3 (2005): 713-740. Read More