Marbury Vs Madison Case Summary

556 Words3 Pages
In Marbury v. Madison (1803) it was announced by the Supreme Court for the very first time, that if an act was deemed inconsistent with the constitution then the court was allowed to declare the act void. Thomas Jefferson’s secretary of state, James Madison, denied William Marbury of his commission. President John Adams appointed William Marbury the justice of peace for the District of Columbia during his last day in office. Madison denied Marbury of this commission because he believed that because it was not issued before the termination of Adams presidency, that it was invalid. Marbury himself started a petition, along with three others who were in a similar situation. They petitioned for a writ of mandamus. This is is an order from a court, to a lower government official, demanding that the lower official correctly complete their initial duties or correct an abuse of discretion. Therefore, Marbury wanted Madison to be ordered to deliver the owed commission. There were a few obvious issues in this case including; does Marbury have a right to the commission? Does…show more content…
So Marshall denied the petition and refused to issue the writ. In section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 it notes that writs can indeed be issued, but that particular section of the act was not consistent with the Constitution, making it invalid. I believe that John Marshall implemented this final decision because it was first of all highly appropriate, as well as it more or less was a good solution for both parties. Yes, Marbury deserved to have his commission but the lawsuit was not necessarily an appropriate way to go about receiving it. Marshall knew that if he were going to protect the power of the Supreme Court then he would have to declare the act
Open Document