Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Alexander hamilton philosophies and ideas
Marbury v Madison case essay
Marbury v Madison case essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The late 1700s and early 1800s were a time full of expansion and innovation in the United States of America. The country was getting bigger, both in population and in geographic size, and the government was getting more powerful as well. This was because of the new Constitution that was put into place in 1787 that replaced the Articles of Confederation and took most of the power away from the individual states and gave it to the federal government. When the Constitution was ratified, both Brutus (believed to be Robert Yates), and Alexander Hamilton were in a debate over the potential power of the federal government, and more specifically, the power of the Supreme Court in Federalist 78 and Brutus’ eleventh and twelfth letters. Alexander Hamilton supported the proposed system and expressed his belief that the judiciary did not have too much power by any means. Brutus was more concerned that the court would simply side with the government and would therefore have too much power over the states. In 1803 one of the biggest landmark cases ever reached the Court, Marbury v. Madison. This case was not directly about the power of the court, but similar to most Supreme Court cases, it turned into a debate about something more crucial. By reading John Marshall’s opinion on the Marbury v. Madison case, it is apparent that Brutus originally had the better idea about the Supreme Court’s power due to his overwhelming wisdom and excellent foresight into what the judiciary would eventually become. In Brutus XI and XII, Brutus wanted to express a widely seen concern about the power of the Judiciary arm of the government. The Constitution and the Federalists both had an ample amount of things to say about the executive and legislative branches, but... ... middle of paper ... ...hat Congress had no power to change the original jurisdiction, therefore finding the Judiciary Act unconstitutional. This is where the problem of judicial review arose in this case. Marshall found an act of congress unconstitutional and declared it null and void. This meant that Marbury, in addition to the rest of the judges and justices added by Adams, never had the right to be in the position they were in, and therefore Madison did not have to issue their commissions. Brutus’ concerns in his eleventh and twelfth letters are most similar to the circumstances that existed at the time of Marbury v. Madison. Although the case did limit the court’s power in one way, it established the much larger and more significant power of judicial review. Marshall declared that it is the duty of the judiciary to decide what the law is and to resolve any conflict between two laws.
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...
During the early 1800s America was still developing, trying to develop the government so it can learn to stand up on its own. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison played a key role in the country’s developing time, they created the idea of strict v. broad constructionism. Political parties were contradicting each other on the different point of views they had on the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson during his presidency sometimes made decisions that were based literally on the Constitution, whereas James Madison being a broad constructionist didn’t always take the Constitution literally.
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
Brutus on the other had, while less extreme, found that when an overly ambitious ruler threatened Rome the only possible answer was murder. They resorted to the actions with true zeal and completely believed in their cause. Sincerity makes each character share the same beliefs about what they are doing. The country's well-being was the only thing on the leaders' minds. & nbsp;
He states that the government had too many leaders and not enough followers. That the government administrated by too many people who had a different motive on running the state. In addition, Madison agreed to what Hamilton was saying. Therefore, Madison helped Hamilton settle this dilemma. “It has been seen that delinquencies in the members of the Union are its natural and necessary offspring; and that whenever they happen, the only constitutional remedy is a force, and the immediate effect of the use of it, civil war.” (Hamilton) Hamilton father explains why this would be a problem with government and predicts what might happen if it reaches to that point. “To this reasoning, it may perhaps be objected, that if any State should be disaffected to the authority of the Union, it could at any time obstruct the execution of its laws, and bring the matter to the same issue of force, with the necessity of which the opposite scheme is reproached.” (Hamilton) Both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote the 18th and 19th Federalist paper. The 18th article spoke about contradicting the argument of anti-federalists that proposed a monarchical rule in America. Madison states that if the anti-federalist and federalist do not collaborate on the rule that they established for the people. They would become like the people in Greek history. “Instead of this obvious policy, Athens and Sparta, inflated with the victories and the glory they had acquired, became first rivals and then enemies; and did each other infinitely more mischief than they had suffered from Xerxes.” Demonstrating a jealous view of power and disorganized fashion. “Their mutual jealousies, fears, hatreds, and injuries ended in the celebrated Peloponnesian war; which itself ended in the ruin and slavery of the Athenians who had begun
entering Brutus had said to himself that Caesar must die. Brutus is also a very smart
These early Supreme Court decisions have made a lasting impression on the United States. Marbury v. Madison established the concept of judicial review that strengthened the ability of the judcicary to act as a check against the legislative and executive branches by providing for the review of Congressional acts by the judiciary to determine the constitutionality of such acts. McCulloch v. Maryland allowed for the expansion of Congress’ implied powers needed to execute its delegated powers as well as defined the supremacy of constitutionally enacted federal entities over state statutes.
James Madison was no stranger to opposition. In publishing an essay referred to today as Federalist Essay No. 10, Madison participated in a persuasive attempt to ratify the Constitution, a document he drafted and for which he is credited as its “Father”. Along with John Jay, who became the United States’ first Supreme Court Chief Justice, and Alexander Hamilton, who became the first Secretary of the Treasury, Madison articulates in his writing the necessity of the Constitution as a remedy for the extant ills of an infant nation recently freed from the grasp of distant monarchical rule. This young nation faltered under the first endeavor of organized government, the Articles of Confederation. The Articles were designed during a period of emerging
Brutus was a very selfish and self-centered person. He continually ignored Cassius’ and the conspirators’ ideas. He was the leader and everyone was supposed to go along with them. Not to mention that all of his decisions went against Cassius and they were all the wrong moves. Brutus refused to admit that he was wrong or listen to other people.
The judicial review in the Marbury v. Madison case, was not used how the founding fathers had intended. The appointment of the federalist judges was made while John Adams had still been in office, to ensure the life of federalism in the government. Thomas Jefferson, the first non-federalist president moved to end the rain of federalism by ordering James Madison to stop the
not what you do; do not consent...” Had Brutus been more aware of what was really
In order to learn from the Articles of Confederation, many quandaries needed to be reanalyzed. Perhaps the most important of these to the Constitutional Convention was the powers of the federal government. The framers had much experience with the disastrous effects of power corruption and thus proposed the inception of the three branches of government. The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches all coexist in our nation for a singular and paramount purpose: to equip this country with an exceptional system of lawmaking and the enforcement of those laws based on the highly efficient concept of checks and balances. This separation of powers and the branches themselves “represent the constitutional framework envisioned by the Founding Fathers for our nation's government” (Longley, 1).
In addition to this characteristic of Cassius, he also has a devious nature. This attribute allows him to invent informed manipulative plans to eliminate his opponents. For instance, after saying his farewells to Brutus, he gives a soliloquy that reveals his idea of throwing writings of different handwritings in Brutus’ windows “as if they came from several citizens” all of which “tending to the great opinion that Rome holds of his name, wherein obscurely Caesar’s ambition shall be glancéd at” (Shakespeare I. ii. 306-309). Since Brutus and Cassius have been friends for a long period of time, Cassius holds an abundance of knowledge pertaining to his values--in this case being his honor and desire to please Rome’s citizens. This undermining plot Cassius has devised is based on an informed opinion of the most effective way to subvert Caesar’s authority, and because of the valid observations made of Brutus by Cassius, the likelihood that this clever scheme will be carried out successfully should make Caesar concerned about the intentions of his judicial
After the murderous confrontation, it was not too late to prevent the anger of Caesar’s allies and the citizens or, even, to avoid future civil war. But it was here that Brutus made his second and third mistakes. Marcus Brutus rose before the Roman populace and attempted to offer a justification of Caesar’s murder. His flawed judgment came when he deemed Antony trustworthy and allowed him to speak at Caesar’s funeral. Brutus naively let Antony draw the mob in his favor. No one could dare refute Antony’s impassioned pleas in behalf of Caesar.