Marbury V Madison The Case Of The Missing Commissions Summary

The case of Marbury v. Madison serves as a profound example of the Supreme Court’s duty of Judicial Review. The writer of “The Case of the Missing Commissions” who describes the case states that around 1803, the Supreme Court had “none of the prestige and little of the accepted authority it now possesses.” The fact that the Judicial branch was deemed inferior to the other two sparked the ambition that Chief Justice, John Marshall, required to gain some supremacy for the Supreme Court. It’s also noted that John Marshall, a Federalist, despised the newly elected President, Thomas Jefferson, who stood against his political views as a Democratic-Republican. Marshall’s fight for power was also intended to “condemn the action[s] of the Executive”

to give Jefferson and his branch a bad name. All in all, the case preserved the commitment and the integrity the Supreme Court has with the Constitution well into today.
The author begins the case with President John Adams, who was to leave office soon and was in desperate need of a way to save the Republic from the upcoming “dangerous radical” of a President, Thomas Jefferson.

Adams found the best solution to his worry was to appoint several new -- and Federalist -- men to the national judiciary right before his resignation. His purpose was to “make the judiciary a stronghold of Federalism” that the Executive -- and soon to be mostly Democratic Republican-- branch could not control. Among the commissions signed by President Adams, John Marshall was to be assigned the new Chief Justice while his term as Secretary of State was nearing its end. The author describes Marshall as headstrong, vigorous, intelligent and a “forceful opponent of Jeffersonian principles,” which all granted his and President Adams’ desire to strengthen the Judicial

branch.
President Adams, having signed the commissions on his last day as president, planned to have them sent to Marshall who had to complete his task as Secretary of State and attach the Great Seal of the United States to each of the documents to have them sent to the new judicial appointees.

Marshall did completely seal the documents, but amidst the hectic day, he only delivered most of them, and as a result, the commissions for the new justices of the peace for the District of Columbia were lost. Soon, Jefferson took office and was deeply offended by the Federalist Judiciary that former President Adams and Marshall had set up. When President Jefferson discovered the lost commissions for Adams’ selection of justices of peace, he refused to send them and instead, formed his own list. He appointed some new men and some men from the ones Adams had selected as the new justices of peace.

Jefferson continued to add fuel to the feud between the Executive and Judicial branches. He convinced Congress with jabs at the slow incoming of cases for the court to rule since the late 1700s to reduce the power of the courts with acts such as the Repeal Bill which “abolished the jobs of the new circuit judges.” The Supreme Court along with Marshall were infuriated and the mistreatment only deepened Marshall’s determination to diminish Jefferson’s authority. Marshall could never find an effective outlet to gain more control for the Supreme Court until the Marbury v. Madison

case.
The case opened when William Marbury lead three other justices of the peace for the District of Columbia whose commissions were refused by Jefferson to the Court; demanding a writ of mandamus. The new Secretary of State, James Madison, was sued because it was his duty to send the commissions approved by Adams. The writ would force Madison to issue the misplaced commissions to the justices. After a hearing from State Department clerks and an Attorney General, it was confirmed that the justices had a right to the commission but an argument was brought up that the documents were not sent before the end of Adams’ term so the positions could not be granted to them, thus they were withheld by Madison. However, although the commissions were not sent, Adams’ signature and the U.S. seal alone completed the arrangement so it was a complete violation of the law for Madison to refuse the justices of their legal right to hold office. As the case was inspected further, Marshall found more ways to denounce the actions of the Executive.
Marshall needed to be cautious with how he reacted to the case and proceeded to mastermind a way to grant the Supreme Court more independence. In reality, it was Marshall to blame for misplacing the commissions of the justices of peace so he not only had to conceal his mistake but also reduce the power the other two branches had on the Court. After deep intellect, he reopened the case and announced that although “Marbury and his associates were legally entitled to their commissions,” the court could not pass a writ for them because the right to do so that was granted to the Court by Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789 was actually unconstitutional. Marshall’s argument was that a statement in the Judiciary Act claimed that the Supreme Court could “issue the writ to “persons holding office under the authority of the United States”’ which violated the specific instructions written in the Constitution that claimed a mandamus could only be issued for cases in lower courts and not in a case first brought up at the Supreme Court. Marshall boldly revealed that “Congress did not have the legal right to give that power to the Court” and solemnly proclaimed, “The constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature.”
Although the case was a victory for the Democratic-Republicans, people stunned by Marshall’s reveal did not immediately notice the benefit the Court gained out of the case as well. Upon surface, it’d just seemed that the Court lost its right of passing writs to its first-hand cases, but it is the right of deeming a legislative law either constitutional or not that gives the Supreme Court authority over the other two branches. The Marbury v. Madison ruling was the “first time the Court had declared an act of Congress as unconstitutional” which the author claims was a fundamental example for the Supreme Court’s legal right to overturn controversial legislations related to “income tax, child labor, [and] wage and hours” to name a few, that have violated the Constitution; ultimately preserving the natural rights of many Americans.
Despite Marshall’s shaky argument, he successfully regained dominion for the Court. The author claims that it is constitutional for the Court to limit legislative power and “determine when it has been overstepped.” The big idea here is that the nation shouldn’t stray away from its founding laws, who better to keep the acts of Congress in harmony with the Constitution than the Supreme Court, who study the fundamental principles of the nation more than anyone else? Although Judicial Review is not exclusively stated in the Constitution, the authority to review and potentially nullify unconstitutional acts should obviously go to the Supreme Court who actively try to maintain the “supreme law of the land.” The author provides examples of different occasions where judicial review was enforced before Marbury v. Madison to rightfully preserve the constitutional rights or consequences given to citizens and to cease unfair laws. I agree when the author claims that as the duties of the federal government expand, the laws they decide upon will increasingly evolve our society. Whether those regulations will benefit or harm the majority, an honorable authority should previously review the new laws which will “[profoundly affect] our social, economic, and political [lives].” Citizens should lay their trust in the courts more than in anyone else, for they know what is right and wrong. The Supreme Court can steer away the Legislative and Executive branches from enforcing too much of their power over the people if it is not granted for them in the Constitution.