What Are The Causes Of Marbury V. Madison

Marbury v. Madison is possibly one of the most important Supreme Court case in United States history. The events that caused and effected Marbury v. Madison was the end of John Adams Presidency, the undelivered commissions, the trail, and the establishment of the judicial review. The result of this court case has made a tremendous impact to put the Constitution above anyone that conflicts with it.

There are many attributions to the causes of Marbury v. Madison. One of the attribution is the end of John Adams Presidency. In the 1800 election, Federalist, John Adams lost to Democratic Republican, Thomas Jefferson. Due to the loss of his presidential campaign, Adams established the Judiciary Act of 1801 and appointed “Midnight Judges”. The Judiciary

Act of 1801 reduced the amount of justices in the Supreme Court. This policy reduced the amount to sixteen circuit judges and fourth-two new justices. The sixteen new circuit judges were all Federalist and this law was passed three weeks, on February 13, before the end of Adams presidency. This act also establishes the expansion of jurisdiction of federal courts and made the courts system more efficient. Adams was also able to appoint sixteen new Federalist judges with the approval of the Senate. He only appoints Federalist judges because Adams want his political party to thrive in government and by choosing Federalist Supreme Court judges it gives Adams superiority over court because theses judges serve for a lifetime. With the new president being a Democratic Republican, Adams appoints Federalist judges to give the opposing political party a hard time and for his own party to have the upper hand and dominate politics.
In addition, another cause to the court case was the failure to deliver the commissions. In the last few days of his presidency, Adams, and his Secretary of State, John Marshall, prepared and finalized the documents for the future justices. The appointment of theses judges was approved by the Senate, but with the havoc of a new president some of the commissions were not delivered. Marshall overlooked the undelivered commissions, thinking it would not affect the future justices. The undelivered commission for Robert Hooe, William Harper, Dennis Ramsay, and William Marbury continued to remain in the State Department. With the new president taking over, there will also be new cabinet members. The former Secretary of State, John Marshall, passed on the role of delivering the commission to the new Secretary of State, James Madison. When Jackson visited the State Department the day after his inauguration, he noticed the undelivered commissions signed, finalized, and ready to be sent out. Anger by Adams action of establishing Judiciary Law 1801 and the appointment of the “Midnight Judges”, Jackson prohibited the delivery of the four commissions and withheld them.
Unsatisfied with not receiving his commission, Marbury files suit and hires former Attorney General Charles Lee to represent Marbury and the three other men that did not receive their commission.

These four men were nominated by the former president, John Adams, and their nomination was confirmed by the Senate, but they were unable to assume their jobs because of the undelivered commissions. Lee requested a writ of mandamus and ordered James Madison to hand over the commissions. Lee explains that these men have a right to their commissions and job. These four men has also met with Madison to request their commissions, but Madison rejects they by announcing he is busy and should ask the State Department clerk which was clueless about the commissions. This case was taken to court mid-December, and announced the preliminary decision. In the hearing, the four men states that they have been “credibility informed” about their nomination, conformation, and the preparation of their commission. Unfortunately, Madison refuses to hand the commissions over and he has shown no reason to withheld them. Although, he court is unable to issue to writ of mandamus ordering the delivery of the commissions, Jefferson and Madison must justify their reasoning of withholding their commissions and blocking them from assuming their posts. This court case resumed in February of 1803. Chief Justice Marshall and several other justices were present in this court case. Attorney General Lee is a

skilled lawyer in Virginia and he was appointed as attorney general by Washington.
Lee represented the plaintiffs which were Marbury, Hooe, and Ramsay.

In court Lee faced a problem, he had to establish the evidence to prove that these men were rightfully appointed with integrity. He showed the panel of judges the existence of the commission appointing the three men into office. The commission was also enforced with the president’s nomination, and the Senates conformation to assume office. He also showed the judges that the commission were not sent to its rightful owner. After presenting this information, Lee could now argue that the unsent commission did not destroy the rights of these men, but the illegal actions made by the executive branch forbidding their ascension and that the Secretary of State should follow the law and hand over the commissions. Madison, the State Department, and the Senate refused to provide evidence to Lee, but the Supreme Court would rather hear the evidence to determine the situation. The first witnesses were the State Department clerks, Wagner and Brent, they initially refused to testify, claiming that they cannot disclose any information about their work, but eventually took an oath and testify. The first to testify was Wagner and Lee asked him what he understood about the commissions for the plaintiffs. Wagner replied saying that the did not see the commissions, but when the three men sought out Madison for their commissions Wagner saw that two of the commissions were signed. The next person to the stands were Brent, he

recounted that he carried the commission to Adams for a signature. Once he got the signature he carried the commissions back to the secretary’s office, but believe that most of the commissions were not sent out. This information helps Lee established that Marbury and Hooe’s commissions were signed and valid. The last person to testify was Levi Lincoln and he was the secretary of state before Madison took over his place. Lincoln refused to testify, but he mentioned that he was acting as the secretary of state when the events took place. If he were asked to testify, he requested to have the questions written on paper to think it through and to decide whether to answer the question or not. As the case lagged on, Lee collected more and more evidence to say his final statement and Madison remained absent. Before making his final statement, he read the affidavit proving the existence of the commissions and he used this evidence to justify his support of a mandamus. In his argument, he addressed the three major issues of this court case. The first, is whether is court can issue the writ of mandamus. The second is whether the mandamus will fall on Madison and the third is if the mandamus of writ would be issued to Madison. He continued to argue that his client had the privilege to exercise their right to run and be appointed for office.
After this powerful statement, nobody opposed Lee and the cause was submitted for review among the justices to decide.
On February 24, 1802 the Supreme Court was called to order for the Marbury v. Madison court case. Chief justice Marshall, reviewed the case with the utmost effort and opportunity, which is shown throughout the length of this paper. The makeup of this document stood out from the other opinions because Marshall viewed this case as a crucial event for the Supreme Court. In his reading of the opinion, Marshall reminds the reader that fourteen months before Madison was required to show why the mandamus should not issue against him. He continues his opinion asking the three questions. Does the applicant have the right to the commission? If the right of commission has been violated, does the country provide him the solution? If the solution is provided, is it the mandamus? The crowd understood that if the court answer yes to all these questions, conflict would emerge between the Supreme Court and the Jeffersonians. The answers to the first and the second questions were yes and the last question was no because the Supreme Court does not have the power and if they do have the power, it would be unconstitutional. After determining the Constitution is superior and unchangeable, Marshall makes two fundamental points that would become a significant subject throughout history. The first point is that the Constitution must prevail when it conflicts with the actions of the Congress. The second point states that the Judiciary Branch will have the final say when there is conflict between the law and the Constitution.