Marbury Vs. Madison: Supreme Court Case

The case of Marbury v. Madison was decided in 1803 and the court voted unanimously in favor of Marbury.

The major issue was broken down into three questions by the Supreme Court. Do plaintiffs get a right to receive their assignment? Can a plaintiff sue in court for their assignment? Finally, does the Supreme Court have the authority to force the transportation of the assignment? The constitutional issues of Marbury v. Madison was about whether or not Madison was neglecting his constitutional duty. In short, the plaintiffs have a right to receive their assignment, a plaintiff can sue for their employment, but the Supreme Court does not have the authority to force those transportation of the assignment. This means that President Jefferson

was in the wrong with ordering Madison not to deliver, but the court could not force Madison to do his job.

The reasons for the majority opinion were voiced by Chief Justice John Marshal. The first reason was that the Supreme Court held that the the power to appoint and commission officers is granted by the Constitution. This is important because any commission that has a president’s signature has to be taken and delivered because the signature is the final step in the process of appointing officials. Since it is the final step, the only part left is to deliver the appointment which should be carried out because the appointment has the signature of the president. The second reason that the majority opinion held was that when there is an appointment, a officer has the right to his or her position under the law. It is therefore okay for them to sue for their position in court. Finally, the question that was considered was found to be null and void because the Supreme Court cannot order the officer or in this case Secretary of State to do his or her job. This is because it conflicts with the Constitution and the separation of powers and because of that the Supreme Court removed Marbury’s claim.

There was no dissenting opinion as the ruling was unanimous.

The significance of the ruling was that it made the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional.

This is extremely important because this sets up judicial review or the ability of the court system to compare every act of legislation from executive orders to all of the laws made from congress and compare them to the Constitution to see if they are unconstitutional or not. Marshall called the Constitution the “supreme law of the land” and said that it is the job of the Supreme Court to decide what the Constitution means. After this ruling, the Supreme Court was given more power and made it on more equal footing with the other two branches of government. Today, the Supreme Court would not have been as influential in history as it has been if this ruling was not created by Marshall. This made the Supreme Court have a purpose besides dealing with disputes between

states.
Dred Scott v. Sanford
The case of Dred Scott v.

Sanford was decided in 1857 and the court voted 7-2 in favor of Sanford.

The major issue was Dred Scott free or a slave? This was then broken down further to did or could a slave became free when entering a free State? Then, could an African American sue in federal courts? After moving more towards the federal government, could the not allow the right to property without due process of law and property be taken without reasonable compensation? Finally, the last question that was asked was the Missouri Compromise constitutional? These were the main constitutional issues that were discussed and considered when the case was brought to the Supreme Court.

The majority opinion was given by Chief Justice Taney. The first reason that this was important according to Taney, was that African Americans were not citizens and a slave was property. Therefore, property can not sue in a federal court. Taney also felt that since the petitioner was a resident of Missouri, Missouri law should apply, not Illinois. The reasoning is not clear because it appeared through their actions and the dissenting opinions that the majority voted to keep slavery not on constitutional basis, but needed a reason to keep slavery. The majority opinion also stated that through their actions, they had hoped stop the questions of slavery once and for

all.

The dissenting opinion was said by Justice Curtis and Justice Mclean. McLean stated that there was no claim that blacks could not be citizens because when the Constitution was ratified, African Americans could vote in five of the thirteen states. The dissenters also stated that the overturning of the Missouri Compromise was wrong because the Constitution did not state that it was unconstitutional to have anti slavery laws.

The significance of the case was that it made African Americans not be citizens. That means that they are not protected by the constitution and therefore no rights which means they can be deprived of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property). The Supreme Court also ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional since it apparently deprived slave owners the right to move their property anywhere in the United States. This made it so that any state or territory could not decide for itself if it wanted to be a slave state or not basically granting slave owners the ability to go anywhere in the United States without having to worry about losing their slaves. This case also made it impossible to vote whether or not the state wanted to be a free state or a slave state. This Supreme Court case was later overturned in 1865 and 1868 by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution.