What principle was established in the 1803 supreme court case marbury v. madison?
|
Annotation Show Primary Holding Congress does not have the power to pass laws that override the Constitution, such as by expanding the scope of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. Facts Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the presidential election of 1800, which was decided on February 17, 1801. Before Jefferson took office on March 4, Adams and Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which created new district courts, expanded the number of circuit courts, added more judges to each circuit, gave the President more control over appointing federal judges, and reduced the number of Supreme Court Justices from six to five. This law essentially was an attempt by Adams and his political party to frustrate the incoming opposition, since he used his new power to appoint 16 new circuit judges and 42 new justices of the peace, a group known as the "Midnight Judges." The incoming appointees were approved by the Adams Senate, but their appointments were not valid until each of their commissions was delivered by John Marshall in his capacity as acting Secretary of State. Justices of the peace were entitled to serve a term of five years. One of the new appointees was William Marbury, a long-standing supporter of Adams who received the position of justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. As was the case with a handful of other new appointees, Marshall failed to deliver Marbury's commission before Adams left office and was succeeded by Jefferson. With the change in administration, Marshall also left his position as Secretary of State and was succeeded by James Madison. However, Jefferson ordered acting Secretary of State Levi Lincoln to cease delivering the commissions, thus preventing the new appointees from taking their positions. He assumed that they could be considered void, since they were not delivered on time. The machinations did not end there, moreover. The Jefferson Congress proceeded to replace the Judiciary Act of 1801 with a new Judiciary Act of 1802 that essentially restored the initial Judiciary Act of 1789. It also sought to delay the Supreme Court in hearing the inevitable challenge to the constitutionality of Jefferson's maneuver by canceling its term in June 1802. Marbury then filed a writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court, asking it to order the executive branch to deliver his commission. Opinions Majority
This was a rare case that arrived at the Supreme Court as the court of original jurisdiction rather than as an appeal from a lower court. Marshall and the other Justices needed to determine not only whether Marbury had a right to his commission but whether he had a remedy that could be enforced through the courts. Marshall found that a remedy could be implied because no right could exist without a remedy. Also, delivering the commission was a purely ministerial function of the executive branch. By ordering it to comply with its ministerial duties, the Court would not violate the separation of powers by encroaching on another branch's discretion. Marshall also ruled that a writ of mandamus was the proper way to seek a remedy but grappled with the question of whether the Supreme Court could issue it. He identified a conflict between the Judiciary Act of 1789 and the Constitution, each of which provided different parameters for the Court's original jurisdiction. Marshall rejected Marbury's argument that the Constitution merely served as a foundation on which Congress could build with later laws, finding that the Constitution trumped any laws and that Congress did not have the power to modify the Constitution through regular legislation. In explaining why the Constitution was supreme to all laws, he noted that the Supremacy Clause places the Constitution before the laws and that judges must take an oath to uphold the Constitution As a result, Marshall found that the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that purported to give the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over these matters was invalid because it violated the Constitution. [The Supreme Court consisted of only six Justices at this time, so Marshall's four-Justice opinion was unanimous because two of the Justices recused themselves.] Recused
Case Commentary The Supreme Court uses its own understanding of the Constitution in reviewing the legitimacy of acts by other branches of the government, even though this power is not apparent from the plain text of the document. This case established the legitimacy of judicial review as well as the primacy of the Constitution over any other source of law. Many legal scholars of both Marshall's period and the contemporary era found the opinion's logic strained, basing a sweeping conclusion on relatively little textual support. Still, the concept of judicial review has long been accepted without challenge. Unfortunately for Marbury, he never received his appointment as a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia, merely because the commission was not delivered before Adams left office. What was established due to Marbury v Madison?In so holding, Marshall established the principle of judicial review, i.e., the power to declare a law unconstitutional.
What principle was established in the case of Marbury versus Madison quizlet?Marbury v. Madison established the principle of "judicial review" the the supreme court has the power to declare acts of congress unconstitutional.
What were the main points to Marbury vs Madison 1803?The case hinged on three issues. First, did Marbury and the other appointees have a right to their commissions? Second, if they did have a right that had been violated, did federal law provide a remedy? Finally, was an order from the U.S. Supreme Court the right remedy to solve the problem?
What was the most significant impact of the 1803 case of Marbury v Madison?Marbury v. Madison strengthened the federal judiciary by establishing for it the power of judicial review, by which the federal courts could declare legislation, as well as executive and administrative actions, inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution (“unconstitutional”) and therefore null and void.
|
