Marbury Vs Madison Pros And Cons

671 Words2 Pages

Marbury v. Madison and Its Implications Luke Leedy GOVT-2305 Prof. Cynthia A Burrus March 8, 2024 What Was Marbury V. Madison about? In 1801, current President John Adams issued William Marbury a commission as a peace offering. However, the secretary of state, James Madison, did not deliver. Causing Marbury to sue Madison for obtaining it. Chief Justice John Marshall developed the concept of judicial review with his ruling in Marbury v. Madison, a significant addition to the "checks and balances" system designed to keep any one branch of the federal government from growing too strong (National Archives). In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which gave the Court the authority to issue writs of mandamus …show more content…

Madison in policy discussions is the creation of a system of checks and balances. It guarantees that each branch of government stays within its constitutional limitations and that none grows to be overly dominant (Krutz). Judicial review also enables the Supreme Court to uphold individual liberty and rights by guaranteeing that executive orders and legislation are consistent with the Constitution. But there are drawbacks as well. Judicial review, according to its detractors, gives unelected judges excessive power, potentially undermining democratic values. Judicial activism raises concerns because it could lead the Court to overreach and interfere in the formulation of public …show more content…

Madison was crucial in the struggle for supremacy between them. The Supreme Court established its jurisdiction to independently interpret the Constitution by claiming the power of judicial review (Urofsky, 2024). With this ruling, the judiciary's position as a check on the acts of the legislative and executive branches was cemented and represented a significant turning point in the balance of power among the branches. It made sure that no branch could act without consequence by establishing the Supreme Court as the last arbiter of constitutional conflicts (Krutz). The United States government's structure might have developed very differently in the absence of the Marbury v. Madison decision and the development of the judicial review principle. Had Marbury v. Madison not occurred, the judiciary may have had less authority to regulate the other branches of government. It's possible that the Supreme Court lacked the power to rule that executive branch or congressional acts were unconstitutional. This might have given the legislative and executive branches more clout, which might have encouraged abuses of power in the absence of strong checks and balances. In summary, the lack of Marbury v. Madison and the principle of judicial review may have led to a government structure that was less equal in the distribution of power among the branches,

Open Document