Marbury v. Madison is the most important Supreme Court case centered on the power of federal courts to side with the Constitution. President Adams appointed forty-two justices of peace for the District of Columbia during the final days of his Presidency. The appointed members had commissions approved by the senate and signed by President Adams and Secretary of State, John Marshall; even containing the official seal of the government. The true conflict was in 1803; Thomas Jefferson, the President that took office after John Adams, had refused to recognize the appointment of the forty-two justices including William Marbury. Therefore, James Madison did not deliver the commissions under President Jefferson’s order. Once Madison refused to deliver the commissions, Marbury, along with three other similarly situated appointees, petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling Madison to show cause of why Marbury nor the other forty-one appointees should not receive their commissions. The provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789, allowed the court to hear cases on original jurisdiction. …show more content…
First question in Chief Marshall’s method was; did the laws of the United States correspond with the courts to rule in Marbury favor? Regarding this, Chief Justice said the function of the Supreme Court is to protect the rights of the inquirers, even against the President, when appropriate. According to Chief Marshall, Marbury contained the right to his stand, therefore could proceed in his case. The last step in Chief Marshall’s method was could the court issue such a writ. The rule concluded that the court could not grant Marbury’s writ because The Constitution clashed with Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of
Maryland 's main arguments were as follows: 1) they had the right to regulate businesses and taxes within their state 2) the Federal government regulated state banks so why couldn’t a state regulate a Federal bank 3) the Constitution gives the Federal government no authority to set up a bank, and therefore it was unconstitutional. On the other side, McCullough 's arguments were: 1) Congress had deemed the creation of a national bank as necessary and proper as a way to conduct financial operations 2) the Constitution is only a framework and not all national operations that may arise could have been listened 3) the federal government is supreme over the state government, and therefore Maryland has no right to question the Second Bank of the United States. In the end, John Marshall gave his verdict in favor of McCulloch and the federal government. In his explanation, he said because of Article I, Section 8 Congress could indeed do whatever they felt was necessary under the “Elastic Clause”. Also, Marshall referred to the Supremacy Clause when he said “As long as the national government behaved in accordance with the Constitution, it’s policies took precedence over state policies”. Finally, Marshall laid out the groundwork for the “implied powers”, which are the powers of the government which have not been explicitly granted by the Constitution.
John Adams, the previous Federalist president, lost the Election of 1800 to Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican. Before Jefferson took office, Adams decided to appoint as many Federalists into the Supreme court as he could, including William Marbury, all of whom needed to be commissioned in order to be officially sworn in. However, Jefferson took office before the commissions could be handed out, and he ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison, to not deliver the commissions. Marbury proceeded to ask Marshall for a writ of mandamus (found in Section 13 of the Judiciary Act), forcing Madison to issue the commissions. This dispute between Marbury and Madison sparks the famous case. The dilemma here is the differences in interpretation. Some viewed Section 13 as unconstitutional, as it added power to the Judicial Branch, disrupting checks and balances. Others saw that “Marbury had been duly appointed…[and] the writ of mandamus [was] to be an appropriate legal remedy for resolving Marbury’s dilemma”(Clinton 86). Marshall wanted to issue the...
Certain things became apparent to Marshall. The Constitution did give the federal government complete control over the nation’s commerce. (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) Also, the Federal Law, according to the Constitution, was the supreme law of the land. (Article 6, Clause 2) Marshall, a Federalist, had always supported a strong central government. However, issues were arising in other parts of the country that would make him consider any decision he made further.
Lincoln justified his action via the suspension clause, claiming that Congress was in recess and therefore could not fulfill its duty at the time. The Constitution itself specifically references habeas corpus and acknowledges that it can be suspended “in cases of rebellion,” however, as Chief Justice Roger Taney asserted in the ruling of Ex parte Merryman (1861), the writ of habeas corpus falls exclusively in the hands of Congress in Section 9 of Article 1“without the slightest reference to the executive branch.” Additionally, Article 6 provides all persons accused the “right to a speedy and public trial by impartial jury of the state.” Both provisions, Justice Taney stated, are in “language too clear to be misunderstood by anyone.” The ruling concluded by declaring that President Lincoln’s actions in suspending habeas corpus in Maryland were unconstitutional as he did so without proper congressional authorization. According to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Maryland, Lincoln had overstepped his appropriate executive authority as
In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Judicial Branch is the “least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution" and that it is “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” since it has “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” [*] While it is true that Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers as propaganda to garner support for the Constitution by convincing New Yorkers that it would not take away their rights and liberties, it is also true that Article III of the Constitution was deliberately vague about the powers of the Judicial Branch to allow future generations to decide what exactly those powers should be. In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, established the Court’s power of judicial review. However, as Jill Lepore, Harvard professor of American History, argued, “This was such an astonishing thing to do that the Court didn’t declare another federal law unconstitutional for fifty-four years” after declaring the Judicial Act of 1789 unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison. [*Jill Lepore] Alexander Hamilton was incorrect in his assertion that the Judicial Branch is the least dangerous to political rights and the weakest of the three government branches because judicial review has made the Supreme Court more powerful than he had anticipated. From 1803 to today, the controversial practice of judicial activism in the Supreme Court has grown—as exemplified by the differing decisions in Minor v. Happersett and United States v. Virginia—which, in effect, has increased the power of the Supreme Court to boundaries beyond those that Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist 78.
In Federalist no. 78 Hamilton explains the powers and duties of the judiciary department as developed in Article III of the Constitution. Article III of the Constitution is very vague on the structure of the federal courts. Hamilton had to convince Americans that the federal courts would not run amok. He presented that the federal courts would not have unlimited power but that they would play a vital role in the constitutional government. Hamilton limited judiciary power by defining it as a text-bound interpretative power. (R.B Bernstein) This essay was intended to endorse as well as interpret the Constitution.
Madison as he was in the Louisiana Purchase, he was still a key player in this episode that redefined the Judiciary branch of American government. Jefferson had just taken over the presidency from John Adams, a member of the rival Federalist Party, who, during his last days in office, had many of his fellow Federalists assigned offices in the Judiciary, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall (Goldfield 277). Jefferson and his Secretary of State, James Madison, resented this Federalist grab for power and refused to give one of the appointees his position. This appointee, William Marbury, used the Judiciary Act of 1789 to take the issue to court (277). However Marshall, did not rule that Marbury be given his appointment by Jefferson, who had been actively removing Federalist Judges and would likely choose not to acknowledge Marshall’s authority (277). Marshall took a different approach, instead of giving Marbury his appointment, he declared the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional because it gave the Supreme Court authority that was beyond what was outlined in the Constitution (277). By taking away some of his own authority, Marshall gave the Supreme Court the formidable ability to declare laws unconstitutional (277). Interestingly, it would never have happened if Jefferson and his administration had not have taken action (or in this case lack of action) against the appointment
Marbury v. Madison, one of the first Supreme Court cases asserting the power of judicial review, is an effective argument for this power; however, it lacks direct textual basis for the decision. John Marshall managed to get away with this deficiency because of the silence on many issues and the vague wording of the Constitution. Marshall was also the first to interpret the Constitution loosely, also known as judicial activism. During his term as Supreme Court Chief Justice, Marshall was also successful in loose constructionism through other landmark Supreme Court cases such as Gibbons v. Ogden ("Emancipation Proclamation" of commerce), and McCulloch v. Maryland (whose decision stated that the states cannot tax a fede...
At the end of President John Adam's term, his secretary of state, John Marshall, failed to deliver documents commissioning William Marbury as the new Justice of Peace. Thomas Jefferson claimed the commissions as invalid and denied Marbury the right of Justice of Peace. Marbury then sued Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison asking the supreme court to demand the delivery of the documents.
1. The court stated that they did have power to hear this case: "Since the court has consistently exercised the power to construe and delineate claims arising under express powers, it must follow that the Court has authority to interpret claims with respect to powers alleged to derive from enumerated powers."
In response to the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 the state of Mississippi brought suit against the President of the United States, Andrew Johnson, claiming that the laws were un-constitutional. The opinion of the court was given by the Chief Justice, and ruled that an injunction against the president could not be made for duties performed by the president within his duties delineated in Article II of the Constitution. In the ruling the court explained the president’s role in this specific case was not ministerial as the state of Mississippi had argued but was rather an act based on his executive and political duties. Quoting Chief Justice Marshall the court explained that an attempt by the judicial branch to oversee such duties would be “an absurd and excessive extravagance.” The opinion further explains that even though the court in this case is not being asked to tell the executive what it must do but rather telling it what it cannot do, the court must not stray from the underlying principle. Thus, the ruling in this case is that the President of the United States cannot be sued to prevent the carrying out of his/her executive responsibilities.
The next morning, John Merryman's lawyers went to Supreme Court Judge Roger Taney's home near Baltimore, and denied all charges of treason (Sandburg 247). Taney became confused and issued the writ of habeas corpus for General Cadwalader to appear in court with Merryman (Sandbu...
The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican government, he and his fellow justices sought to perpetuate their Federalist principles in the United States’ court system. In one of the most memorable court cases of all time--the case of Marbury v. Madison-- Marshall established the idea of judicial review and strengthened the power of the judicial branch in the government. Abiding by his Federalist ideals, Marshall decided cases that would explicitly limit the power of the state government and broaden the strengths of the national government. Lastly, the Marshall Court was infamous for determining the results of cases that dealt with the interpretation of the Constitution and the importance of contracts in American society. The Marshall Court, over the span of a mere three decades, managed to influence the life of every American citizen even to this day by impacting the development of the judicial branch, establishing a boundary between the state and national government, and making declarations on the sanctity of contracts ("The Marshall Court"...
all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or may they act by representatives, freely and
However it was his last piece of legislation which proved to be especially difficult for Jefferson. Right before the end of Adams presidency, Adams signs into law the Judiciary Act of 1801, which reorganized the federal court system. The “midnight judges” were had selected by President John Adams, and he signed appointments (licenses) up until midnight on his last day in office. As soon as Jefferson took office he paid no attention to these documents and decides to put them away. To Jefferson this doesn’t seem to be a problem, until William Marbury (one of Adams appointed midnight judges) begins to take notice. After addressing James Madison (Thomas Jefferson’s Vice President) with the issue, Marbury decides to sue Madison for the failure of delivering his appointments. This court case is known as Marbury vs Madison. This court case essentially creates the system of “Checks and