Pros And Cons Of Marbury V. Madison

863 Words4 Pages

Marbury v. Madison
1. Summary of the history of the case and its significance on our structure of government.
Marbury v. Madison was the first case in United States where the Judiciary ruled that an Act that had been passed by the congress was unconstitutional. In the final moments of President John Adams’ administration, William Marbury was appointed a justice of the Peace for the Columbia District. This act by Adams’ friendly Congress changed Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. Despite this ruling, the Secretary of State James Madison refused to deliver Marbury’s commission. James Madison then teamed up with other three appointees to petition for a writ of Mandamus compelling to be granted the commissions and necessary paper work so as to become a Justice of The Peace, (Safell, 2001).
The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Marshall denied the petition and declined to issue the writ of Mandamus. The chief justice held that the Supreme Court did not have the constitutional powers to issue the writs. The ruling was so despite the fact that the petitioners were entitled to their commissions. The Court had established itself as a true third branch of the government, and Judicial Review continues to this day.
The significance of the ruling in Marbury v. Madison case was that it gave the Supreme Court of United States …show more content…

First, it does not always reflect the will of the people. Since it is the people who elect the Congress and the President, I believe their will should prevail. The Supreme Court should obey the will of the people rather than relying on interpretation of the constitution. Also, Judicial Review may cause a president or Congress to delay some activity or law until they get an opinion from legal advisers as to the constitutionality of the action or law, (Clinton, 1989). This might affect solving some essential matters of urgency lest the Supreme Court rules against it

Open Document