Jessica Whitney, Paper #1, January 26

Marbury v. Madison
Brief Summary of the Case
When William Marbury was appointed to be a federal judge in the final moments of John
Adams' presidency, the new Secretary of State, James Madison, was ordered by the new
president not to deliver the commission. Marbury wanted a way to compel Madison to deliver
the commission, so he found that The Judiciary Act of 1789 said that the Supreme Court could
issue a writ of mandamus that would force James Madison to deliver the commission (Prakash
and Yoo, 2003). When this came to the Supreme Court's attention, Chief Justice Marshall had to
decide whether or not the Supreme Court of the power to issue the writ of mandamus.
Ultimately, Marshall decided that even though Marbury had the right to the commission and a
legal remedy existed, because The Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional, the Supreme
Court could not issue a writ of mandamus. This established the precedent of judicial review
(Warren, 1922).
Laws or Constitutional Principles in Question
There were two main principles in question. The first was whether or not any piece of
congressional legislation could supersede the Constitution. The second established the precedent
of judicial review wherein the supreme court could rule on other laws and declare them to be null
and void if they were found to be unconstitutional (Nelson, 2000).
Questions That the Court Was Being Asked to Answer
The questions the court was being asked to answer were the following:

Did Marbury have a right to the commission?

Do the laws of the country give Marbury a legal remedy?
Is asking the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus the correct legal remedy (Warren,
1922)?

Decision & Reasoning behind It

The decision was affirmative responses to the first two questions noted above, but a huge
negative to the last one. The reasoning was that although Marbury had the right to demand a writ
of mandamus according to the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Supreme Court could not issue it
1

Jessica Whitney, Paper #1, January 26

because they found that that act conflicted with Article III of the Constitution. They had to
declare that law was unconstitutional and therefore, no longer a law (Prakash and Yoo, 2003).
Dissensions among the Justices
There were no dissensions among the Justices (Warren, 1922).
Significance of the Case
This case was supremely important in terms of setting the precedent for judicial review
one of the most important functions of the Supreme Court. It was also significant because it
allowed that not every congressional law passed could undermine the integrity of the
Constitution, meaning that if any law went against the Constitution (like The Judiciary Act of
1789), the Supreme Court could correct that oversight by declaring those laws null and void
(Nelson, 2000).
McCulloch v. Maryland
Brief Summary of the Case
In 1816, United States Congress passed an act which allowed the incorporation of a
second bank of United States. When that bank opened a branch in Baltimore, Maryland, the state
of Maryland decided to tax the bank and fine the bank for not printing money on the Maryland
paper. James William McCulloch, the head of the bank at Baltimore, refused to pay the tax or the
fine, and that made Maryland take him to court. When the state of Maryland found that
McCulloch would still need to pay the fine, he took it to the Supreme Court (Killenbeck, 2006).
This brought up state versus federal, and who exactly was supreme as well as if it was
constitutionally in the bounds of Congress to have a federal bank in the first place. The Supreme
Court found that Congress had the power to create a federal bank and that the federal
government could not be taxed by the states (Ellis, 2007).
Laws or Constitutional Principles in Question
Three main constitutional principles are in question here. First, there is the issue with
state sovereignty. Maryland argued that it was a sovereign state, and it could therefore tax the
federal government. Chief Justice Marshall refuted that by saying that because the people ratified
the Constitution, the people were sovereign, but not the states (Killenbeck, 2006). Secondly, this
2

Jessica Whitney, Paper #1, January 26

case brought into question the scope of congressional power. Because provisions for a federally
enacted bank were not expressly written into the Constitution, Maryland thought that it was
unconstitutional. Chief Justice Marshall reasoned that as our country expanded, the Constitution
need to be elastic and expansive (Ellis, 2007). Lastly, it expanded the definition of the Necessary
and Proper Clause. "Necessary" now meant not only those laws that are absolutely essential, but
those that would further the cause of the country. If it was not expressly forbidden by the
Constitution, it could be within Congress' rights to enact (Killenbeck, 2006).
Questions That the Court Was Being Asked to Answer

Was it within Maryland's legal bounds to tax the federal government?

Was the creation of a national bank constitutional (Killenbeck, 2006)?

Decision & Reasoning behind It

The decision was that Maryland was in the wrong; it did not have the power to tax the
federal government, and that it is well within the Constitution for Congress to create a national
bank. Chief Justice Marshall enumerated the four reasons behind this decision. First, historically,
Congress had the power to create the bank. It had actually come up TWICE before if this power
was unconstitutional, and both times it ended up that it was within constitutional bounds
(Killenbeck, 2006). Secondly, Chief Justice Marshall put to rest the notion that states retained
ultimate sovereignty by saying because people were the ones who ratified the Constitution that
they were sovereign, but the states were not (Ellis, 2007). Thirdly, Chief Justice Marshall noted
that as things in the United States are rapidly changing, the Constitution would need to expand
and not limit its powers, and therefore, under Article I, the creation of the bank was within the
scope of congressional powers (Killenbeck, 2006). Lastly, Chief Justice Marshall posited that if
the ends were worthy and necessary for the United States to be maintained, the means to get
there were supported by The Necessary and Proper Clause (Ellis, 2007).
Dissensions among the Justices
There were no dissensions among the justices (Killenbeck, 2006).
3

Jessica Whitney, Paper #1, January 26

Significance of the Case
This case is significant because it solidified the power of the federal government, broadly,
but also specifically for the creation of a national bank (Ellis, 2007). This is great, because it
would be so annoying to have to change cash monies whenever someone crosses state lines. If
Maryland had had its way, that's what we would be experiencing right now, that's to say if we
were still a nation without this pivotal case being resolved in the correct way. In Valley Forge,
during the Revolutionary war, soldiers suffered immensely because, essentially, states wanted to
maintain their own power and not give it up to the federal government. Although this case was
not particularly popular at the time, it ensured that an incident like Valley Forge would not
happen again. And it has stood the test of time. Since 1819, when this case was decided, no state
has ever questioned the authority of the United States to create a federal bank (Killenbeck,
2006).

Jessica Whitney, Paper #1, January 26

References
Ellis, R. (2007). Aggressive Nationalism: McCulloch v. Maryland and the Foundation of
Federal Authority in the Young Republic. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Nelson, W. E. (2000). Marbury v. Madison: The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review. Topeka,
KS: University Press of Kansas.
Prakash, S. B. and Yoo, J. C. (2003). "The Origins of Judicial Review," 70 U. Chicago Law
Review.
Warren, C. (1922). The Supreme Court in United States History, Volume 1. New York, NY:
Little, Brown.