Marbury Vs. Madison: The Supreme Court Case Brief

When Thomas Jefferson won the election of 1800, the federalist President Adams proceeded to quickly fill vacancies in the judiciary with members of his own party that could be judge of lifetime if they had a good behavior. In response, the Republicans of Jefferson repealed the Judiciary Act of 1800. Although the President Adams tried of cover them vacant before the end of his mandate, a series of commissions had not been expressed. Therefore, when Jefferson became president, he refused to honor the appointments of last hour of President John Adams. As a result, William Marbury, one of those named demanded James Madison, the new Secretary of State, and asked the Supreme Court to order the delivery of his Commission as a Justice of the peace.

The Marbury v Madison case took place in 1803 when the secretary of state, James Madison, refused to seat four judicial appointees despite them being confirmed by the senate. While the court had already ruled it was wrong to prevent Marbury from taking office, the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction. The Supreme Court announced for the first time that a court may declare an act of Congress void if it is inconsistent with the Constitution. The Court also stated that Marbury was in the right but more so that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional deemed so because Congress could not give the Supreme Court power to issue an order granting Marbury his commission in the first place. A similar statement came from Chief Justice John Marshall when he stated that Congress could not give the Supreme Court the power to issue an order granting Marbury his commission because Congress had exceeded its authority by extending jurisdiction.

This was essentially naming him as the next president which Jacksonians despised and continuously attacked Adams for during his four years in office. The cause for the Jacksonians’ anger towards President John Quincy Adams was his appointment of Clay to be his Secretary of State, generally giving him a great advantage in becoming the next president. Jackson had a greater lead in electoral votes and national popularity so being twice practically denied the Presidency was hard. The effect of the hatred of Adams for his alleged “corrupt bargain” with Clay was a blockage of his proposals in Congress. Similarly, Donald Trump plans to give his companies to his children to run while he is President, but still has them on his transition team.

Most of these documents included bills of rights, specifically guaranteeing long-prized liberties against later legislative encroachment. Most of them required the annual election of legislators, who were thus forced to stay in touch with the mood of the people. All of them deliberately created weak executive and judicial branches, at least by present-day standards. A generation of quarreling with His Majesty’s officials had implanted a deep distrust of despotic governors and arbitrary

The Supreme Court unanimously agreed to reverse the previous court’s decision of not guilty citing that it is within the constitutional authority of Congress to standardize interstate commerce. The Court believed that the goal of the Act was to prohibit states from using substandard labor systems to their own monetary benefit by interstate commerce. The Court also established that the clause for keeping records of labor was fitting to allow for the enforcement of the Act. It was also decided that an employer could be held accountable to the law if they failed to follow it.

The clause allowed Congress to approve laws that were necessary and proper to carry out the government’s duties under the Constitution. Subsequently, Marshall decided that Maryland had no mandate to tax the government and that it was constitutional to open the bank. His ruling declared, “the Government of the

Madison case, the outcome could and would have been completely different. The decision he made of ruling in favor of James Madison, rather than William Marbury, was absolute brilliance. Even though he disagreed with Madison and believed Marbury deserved the appointment of a justice, he still had to rule against Marbury because this was the only way to establish the principle of judicial review, one of the most important parts of the system of checks and balances. The three branches of our government would not be equal without the court having such a power. Today, it is accepted that the supreme court will evaluate the federal laws and the acts of the executive and legislative branches.

These commissions were not met by James Madison, the Secretary of State for Jefferson. As a result, one of the appointees, William Marbury, filed a writ of mandamus demanding that Madison deliver the commissions. The Supreme Court denied the request, stating that part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. This landmark court case established the concept of Judicial Review, the power to determine if a law or act is unconstitutional. This case brought the judicial branch equal

Checks and Balances Secondly, the separation of power provides a system of shared powers or checks and balances. By that I mean, that each branch has the power to limit or check the other two. The Constitution gave the most checks to Congress or the legislature. They did this because the framers did not want the president to gain enough power to become a tyrant.

The Supreme Court ruled that Congress had implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause which made it constitutional to create the Second Bank of the United States. Furthermore, it ruled that the state of Maryland could not implement a tax on the bank. In addition, the Supreme Court brought up an amazing point stating that “if [the Supreme

I agree with the Supreme Court on placing emphasizes on keeping the presidential power in check but respecting the doctrine of separation of powers. The Court has the power to hear cases that involve federal questions because the

The Marbury vs Madison case was a landmark Supreme Court case that formed the basis of judicial review. William Marbury had been anointed justice of peace by John Adams at the end of his term as President. James Madison believed that he should not have been appointed justice of peace. Following this, Madison did not deliver Marbury’s commission which resulted in the Marbury vs Madison case. As acting Chief Justice John Marshall told Madison that what he had done was illegal, but since Marbury’s petition was out of jurisdiction Madison claimed it unconstitutional so the court could not order Madison to return the papers.

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

He mapped out what he wanted in a good government to be. What Jefferson wrote in the declaration of independence was not supported by the dreams of the new Constitution. The constitution did not support the style of government talked about by T.J. because for one, there wasn 't much room for the power of the people to change their government if they see fit. Secondly it did not give the citizens of the U.S. clear, mapped out “unalienable rights”. Lastly the Constitution did not provide guards for citizens future security in the government as laid out by T.J. in the

In the year 1803, an ambivalent, undetermined principle lingered within the governing minds. The government and its “justified” Constitution were thought to be fully explained, until a notion occurred that would bring individuals to question the authority and their limit for empowerment. To end his days as president, John Adams named fifty-eight people from his political party to be federal judges, filing positions created by the Judiciary Act of 1800, under the frequently listed Organic Act. His secretary John Marshall delivered and sealed most of the commissions, however seventeen of them had not yet been delivered before Adams’s departure in 1801. On top of that, Thomas Jefferson refused to appoint those seventeen people because they were