Marbury vs Madison and the Power of Judicial Review - Essay Example

Marbury v. Madison and the Power of Judicial Review The Supreme Court is the highest appellate court of the Judiciary. The Judiciary is one of the three branches of the government. The other two are the Executive and the Legislative branches. Each has been granted power to serve the interests of the people and carry out the objectives of the nation. The Legislative branch makes the laws of the land. The Executive branch executes the laws of the land. The Judiciary interprets the laws of the land and it is the branched possessed with the power of judicial review. Judicial review is that specific power of the Courts to interpret the constitutionality of laws. This also encompasses the power of a court to interpret the provisions of the Constitution. Generally, this power of judicial review is meant for the Courts to oversee the legislative or executive functions. However, the Court is able to exercise the power to uphold or deny the congressional and executive actions in passing upon the issue of constitutionality. Thus, judicial review can, in effect, nullify the acts of the other branches of the government. This should not be taken that the Supreme Court overpowers the other two branches. Instead, this authority must be understood in the light of the need to uphold the Constitution at all times. After all, in a country where rule of law is observed, the Constitution must be upheld without exception. To state otherwise will only result to the negation of the interests of the people. The power of the Supreme Court to make pronouncements as regards existing laws is not an absolute power. It is a rule that the power to exercise judicial review must be exercised only when there is an actual case or an actual controversy. Thus, to properly request the courts to examine the constitutionality of law, there must be at least one party who stands to benefit or to be injured by the questioned provisions of the law and who shall ask a pronouncement from the Court. This can be properly illustrated in the case of Marbury v. Madison. The case of Marbury v. Madison is considered a very important landmark case in the history of the Unite States Supreme Court. This is the first instance that the U.S. Supreme Court was able to declare and exercise its power of judicial review. What happened in the case of Marbury v. Madison? It was in the year 1800. William Marbury had been nominated, appointed as a justice of peace and given a commission. John Adams, the president of the United States back then, already signed the commission. The United States seals had been affixed to it also. However, James Madison, the Secretary of State of the United States, did not deliver the commission to Marbury and continued to withhold it. Thus, Marbury instantly sought the assistance of the Supreme Court to order Madison to finally issue the commission. Marbury filed an original case before the U.S. Supreme for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. A writ of mandamus is a court order given upon a public official to carry out a ministerial duty, a duty where no discretion is required from the person. These are the facts as stated in the case. It is worthy to have an insight into the realities of the time back then. Marbury is said to be one of the ‘midnight judges’ appointed by then Federalist President Adams. His appointment failed to get delivered before Adams left the seat. Thus, when the Republican Thomas Jefferson became the president, his Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to act on the situation of Marbury. Going back to the decision of the case, the Court further discussed the difference between discretionary and ministerial functions. The discretionary function is lodged upon the President and the Senate, with the President nominating and appointing Marbury and the Senate confirming the nomination. Also, the President signed the commission of Marbury and have the U.S. seal affixed into it. The only thing left to do for Madison as U.S. Secretary of State is to deliver the commission to Marbury. However, Madison refused or ignored to perform this last act. At this point, it seems that the case of Marbury is strong enough to earn him a favorable decision. Evidently, his commission is being withheld illegally. The writ of mandamus is the proper remedy for persons aggrieved by the failure of public officials to carry out a ministerial duty. However, an issue was raised to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was confronted with the question of whether it can issue the writ of mandamus. The law establishing the judicial courts of the United States provides for the power to issue the writ of mandamus. Section 13 of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 states that “[t]he Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and the courts of the several states…and shall have power to issue…writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principle and usages of the law.” However, the Constitution was silent as regards this power upon the Courts. Thus, the constitutionality of the Judiciary Act of 1989 was ultimately submitted to the Supreme Court. The United States Constitution is the source of the power that the Supreme Court and all the other inferior courts can exercise. As stated in the body of the decision of Marbury v. Madison, “[t]his original and supreme will organizes the government and assigns to the different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.” Thus it is incumbent upon the Supreme Court to go back to the provisions of the Constitution. The distribution of the power of the courts is stated in the Constitution. It is stated that “[t]he Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” This means that if the cases does not involve an ambassador, a public minister, a consul or the state, then the Supreme Court can only act as an appellate court. However, it was argued in the instant case that the above provision was not restrictive, that the Legislature, when it deems proper, can assign or expand the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. In rebutting the contention that its jurisdiction may be expanded by the Legislature, the Supreme Court stated that “[i]f Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution is form without substance.” The Legislature cannot expand the authority of the Supreme Court beyond the scope laid down by the Constitution. The Supreme Court found that the issuance of the writ of mandamus could only be granted if it takes the case on appellate jurisdiction. However, since the instant case had been filed as an original case, the Court has no power to issue such writs because in the first place, it never acquired jurisdiction over the person of Marbury not even over the subject matter of the case. Thus, even if Marbury was able to present a meritorious case, the Supreme Court must deny the relief because the basis of his case was an unconstitutional legislative enactment. The Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional in its expansion of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. Finally, the Supreme Court made the pronouncement as to the power of judicial review. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.” The power of judicial review empowers the Judicial Department to strike down a law that is strongly repugnant to the Constitution. It authorizes them to declare the legislative enactments as void if they are not consistent with the theories and principles of the government. The Constitution cannot yield to the legislative enactments. This is what the Supreme Court had been tasked and duty-bound to ensure. Since the promulgation of the decision of Marbury v. Madison, numerous decisions have quoted the case and relied on the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court has nullified more than 150 Congressional enactments and at least 1000 state laws (Patrick, 182). This power can be used in protecting the liberties and rights provided in the Constitution. However, caution must be taken that the interpretation of the Court is not always infallible. Take the 1820 case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. In this case, the Court nullified the state law of Missouri that granted freedom to a slave. This is many years before the civil liberty guarantees present in the Constitution now. This shows that the interpretation of the Court may not be consistent in the policies it upholds. However, it is consistent in shaping the understanding of the people of the constitutional provisions. This is how the Court is able to shape policy in a way. Ultimately, judicial review enables the Court to participate in policy-making, even if only indirectly. Some would contend that the Court has no role in policy-making. However, it is more proper to look at the power of judicial review as a necessary element of the checks-and-balances system. Under this system, there is recognition that each of the three branches of the government is given independence in their powers and duties. However, to curb abuses or to minimize the mistakes in the performance of duties, each of the three branches can check on the other. This way, all the branches of the government serve as watchdogs to the other and each is given the opportunity to correct the mistakes committed. Works Cited Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sanford. No. 1792-1995. Supreme Ct. of the US. 6 March 1857. Judiciary Act of 1789. 24 September 1789. Stat. 1.73. Marbury v. Madison No. 137-180 Supreme Ct. of the US. 1803. Patrick, John J. The Supreme Court of the United States: A Student Companion. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001 Read More