Case Study: Marbury v Madison

Introduction

The Supreme Court of the United States of America is the highest court in the federal judiciary. The court was established under Article III of the United States Constitution in 1789. The Supreme Court of the United States is the apex court in the country and the final court in the land. Decisions by the United States Supreme Court are final and binding to the law courts. Moreover, judicial review is essential in the legal system because it ensures that the country is governed by laws that are consistent with the Constitution. Through judicial review laws that are repugnant and inconsistent with the constitution are revised and expunged. Additionally, developed a legal system based their judgments on precedents. Therefore, judges are obliged to make decisions that are consistent with the judicial decisions on the same subject. Furthermore, the upper court has the power to overturn the decision. Consequently, each decided case becomes a precedent. The case under review is the Marbury v Madison which established judicial review in 1803.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Background of the Case

Marbury v Madison is considered to be the first case in the history of the United States Supreme Court to apply for judicial review. During the 1800 elections, the Democratic - Republican Party led by Thomas Jefferson managed to defeat the Federalist Party that was led by John Adams (Nelson 26). The victory created political panic in the country. Before the elections, President Adams had appointed some Marbury as one of the justices for the District of Columbia. The commissions were later approved by the Senate. President Adams used his powers to validate the appointments by signing for the authorization of the names and affixed them with the official seal of the government (Hoffmann-Riem 20). However, the commissions were not delivered. Therefore, when President Jefferson assumed office on March 5, 1801, he ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison not to provide the names. These actions prompted William Marbury, one of the appointees of former President Adams to petition the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus.

Marbury requested the court to provide a legal order compelling the Secretary of State, Madison to illustrate why he should not receive his commission. The petitioner was allowed to directly petition the Supreme Court of the United States of America in this case. Marbury wanted his name to be approved because the former President, Adams had already provided the required qualifications and their names had been passed by the Senate (Hoffmann-Riem 45). Therefore, the names of the appointees had followed all the necessary legal proceedings before the election and the only remaining issue was the names to be forward.

Issues of the Case

In the case of Marbury v Madison, the petitioner presented three matters to the court. There were three issues presented before the court. The Supreme Court was to determine if Marbury had a right to be granted the writ as per the petition. The next matter before the court was whether the laws of the United States allow the Supreme Court to grant Marbury the writ that had requested the court. The final issue that required the court's attention was whether the Supreme court had the power to issue such a writ if the law provides the courts with the powers.

On the first issue for determination, Chief Justice Marshall ruled that Marbury Marbury had appropriately been appointed by the available laws. All the procedures established under the United States laws had been followed to the letter regarding the appointment. The court confirmed that on the first issue to be determined by the court, Marbury had a right to the writ of mandamus. On the second question, the Supreme Court of the United States held that Marbury had a legal right to his commission (Nelson 54). Therefore, the law is required to afford him a remedy. On this issue, the Chief Justice further stated that it was the responsibility of the courts in the country to protect the rights of the citizens even against the actions of the presidents of the United States of America. Therefore, he requested President Jefferson to follow and adhere to the rule of law and uphold the rights of every citizen despite their political differences.

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of judicial review in answering the final question that was presented before the court for determination. The problem was whether a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court was a proper remedy to be granted in the case. In his decision, the Chief Justice held that the court had no powers to grant the writ because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the court the authorities to issue the writ of mandamus was unconstitutional as far as it extended to cases of original jurisdiction in the country (Hoffmann-Reim 67). According to this case, original jurisdiction referred to the power to directly present arguments before the nation's Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court quoted Article III that declared that such powers only applied in cases affecting ambassadors, consuls, and public ministers. Furthermore, it referred to cases in which the state was a party. Therefore, Chief Justice Marshall ruled that by extending the court's original jurisdiction to include the case of Marbury, the Congress had ultra vires used its powers. The Chief Justice further acknowledged that when an act of Congress contradicts with any provision of the Constitution, the court must protect and uphold the Constitution because Article VI of the Constitution has declared it as the supreme law of the land (Nelson 75). Chief Justice Marshall ruled that the decisions of the Congress must be consistent with the Constitution and any that is repugnant is null and void. Consequently, the judgment of the court denied Marbury his commission because the Act of the Congress was unconstitutional. The court has since used Marbury v Madison to affirm its legitimacy in the country (Nelson 89). Furthermore, the ruling presented the court with the opportunity to assert his powers and to be respected as one of the arms of the government. The function of the court became to primary interpret laws in the country.

Dissenting Opinion

The dissenting opinion which is also considered to be the minority opinion has protected the legislature. According to the minority opinion, it believed that Congress is the legislative arm of the government. Therefore, they had the required powers to make laws. The dissenting opinion further stated that laws passed by the legislative arm of the government are final and the courts must use them effectively. The minority opinion ruled that courts have no power or authority to assume the function of the Congress in making laws. The primary duty of the Supreme Court and other courts was to interpret laws as passed by the legislature (Hoffmann-Reim 56). The dissenting opinion went further to state that the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land grants the Congress powers to make rules. Therefore, any legislation from Congress is valid and applicable in the country.

The Decision of the Court

I wholeheartedly agree with the decision of the court in the case of Marbury v Madison. Judicial review is an essential aspect of our legal system. The purpose of the three arms of the government is to protect the constitution because it is the supreme law of the land. Moreover, any law that is inconsistent with the Constitution should be declared to be null and void (Nelson 95). Though the legislature must pass and amend laws, the laws and regulations must be consistent with the Constitution of the United States of America. Additionally, the three arms of the government are independent but also interdependent on one another.

The other duty of the three arms of government is to provide checks and balances. Therefore, in the case of Marbury v Madison, the Supreme Court accomplished its responsibility of protecting and upholding the Constitution. Furthermore, the ruling proved that the Supreme Court was providing checks and balances to the legislature. The decision of the Supreme Court was significant because it legitimized the role of the judiciary in a country. Furthermore, it limited the ultra-vires powers of the legislature in passing laws that are favorable to them. The judgment by the Chief Justice is iconic because it protected the stature of the Constitution has the supreme law of the land. Therefore, any act of the Congress or Senate that is repugnant or inconsistent with the Constitution is considered to be null and void.

Works Cited

Hoffmann-Riem, Wolfgang. "Two hundred years of Marbury v. Madison: the struggle for judicial review of constitutional questions in the United States and Europe." German LJ 5 (2004): 685.

Nelson, William Edward. Marbury v. Madison: The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review. Vol. 37. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2000.