Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Student’s name:
Professor’s name:
Course:
Date:
Introduction
Marbury V Madison is well known as a critical event in the history of the US supreme
court. It is a case that established grounds for the judicial reviews in the United States by use of
the provisions of the Article III. The final decision for this case actually defined the limits within
which the judicial and executive parts of the government operates. This was a good platform for
the judiciary to show its independence as an arm of the government at par in line with the executive
and the congress. The essay is going to give a detailed account of a seemingly simple case of
Marbury V Madison, and the impact of ruling that led to total transformation in the judicial
system and governance of the United States till today. (thesis statement)
During the 1800 presidential elections, Jefferson Thomas, won the presidential position
under a democratic republican ticket becoming a third president of the US. However, he was not
in power until 4th of march in 1801. At this interim duration, President Adams, an outgoing leader
still had full control of a lame duck government with its sixth congress. During this period, the
congress decided to approve the judicial Act of the 1801 modifying the act of Judiciary of 1789.
Adams chose many justices with commissions signed by the outgoing president himself, with a
senate approval, and government seal that was official. To make the commissions effective, they
Surname 2
had to take them to the appointees, a task that was left in the hands of Madison James. Some
appointed judges were not served with the commissions and Jefferson assumed office on 5th of
march, he asked Madison (who was the secretary of state) to withhold remaining commissions
delivery. The president went on to file a case in the supreme court to get legal order that would
compel Madison to explain why he had not fully delivered commissions yet it was his
responsibility.
During the final making of the decision on this issue, the chief Justice by the name Marshall
determine if Marbury was entitled to the common he was claiming. Secondly, would the court be
operating within constitutional boundaries if it were to give such an order? And finally, did the
highest court in the land carry the powers to grant such a weighty writ in such a case? According
to Clinton & Robert Lowry, while trying to answer the questions, the judge determined that,
Marbury had received the commission constitutionally and thus he was entitled to it. Secondly,
since Marbury had received a legal appointment, the law ought to give him a remedy the plight he
as facing. The chief Justice continued by claiming that, it was the court’s responsibility to stand
for the citizens’ rights and this is even from the law makers.
Judge Marshall finally addressed the notion of judicial review when answering the third
question. The controversy arose from the query if the Supreme Court’s order of a writ of
mandamus was the correct solution to this situation (Marshall pg. 803). The section 14 of the
Judicial act of the 1789 this became automatically unconstitutional at a time of making
consideration to the cases of the original jurisdiction. As stipulated by Article III, only the civil
servants as well as other state officers should proceed and in this case, the state is part. The
congress had already surpassed the authority it had when it was extending the court’s previous
Surname 3
decision to comprise Marbury (Clinton pg. 929). It is thus the duty of the court to uphold the
constitution whenever it collided with this particular act. The reason to this is that, the nation’s
constitution remains the supreme law of the land and this is restated in the article VI. In this case,
Marbury was denied his commission, affirming the court’s authority to review the congress acts
(Marshall, pg. 803). The chief Justice established the supreme court as an ultimate interpreter of
the constitution but not the only one. The establishment made the court an equal and independent
government branch.
The judicial review is the authority and ability of the court to own a review statute, treaty
or regulation to ensure a country is acting in compliance to the constitution (Nelson, pg. 390). The
powers of judicial review in the US are contingent on the history, structure and provisions of the
constitution. These particular powers began when marshal the Chief justice made a landmark
decision in the case of Marbury V Madison. In this instance, the supreme court of the land ruled
that, federal courts should and can comfortably review the acts of the congress as well as invalidate
them in a case where they are deemed as unconstitutional. Accruing to Nelson, the concept of the
judicial review is well established with the US courts quoting “Marbury V Madison” case
As asserted by Marshall, President Thomas declared that the integrity as well as the
impartiality of the judges has to come under a review on regular basis. In the same note, the
president argued that, judges are to enjoy security of tenure as a security for their job in which they
are appointed to do. They are never subject to elective controls and thus are less responsible.
Whenever they stay in office for a long time, they might be drunk of power and then make
decisions that are not sound or constitutional. When this happens, they may make decisions that
contradict with those of the law makers (congress). According to the president Jefferson’s letter
Surname 4
in response to the Chief Justice assertion, he said that, such ruling tends to usurp the just authority
of the people who wish to govern themselves via the set constitutional procedures in a deliberative
democracy. Reacting to the ruling on Marbury Vs Madison, Jefferson warned that a judicial review
would only lead to a kind of despotism. A legal scholar by the name Robert Lowry Clinton also
interpreted the letter to mean that the Court was creating a very different understanding of the
Constitution to justify what it could and could not do within its own sphere. Thomas’ fear is
justified as many judges now hold an unconstitutional view of their ability to strike down
legislative acts that do not please them. The courts regularly surpass their constitutional boundaries
In making the decision, Chief Justice Marshall was well within his constitutional rights to
interpret the constitution. The incoming congress stopped the delivery of the commissions to the
hastily appointed judges. Since the supreme court had chosen to overrule congress decision, it
meant that, they would be acting out of their given jurisdiction powers. The congress had already
acted in the limits of the constitutional provisions when they issued the appointments and besides,
they had followed the necessary procedures. Initially, it is the constitution of the US that had called
for the creation of the government that contained legislative judiciary and a section of the
executive. As provided in Article I, the office of the president was entirely mandated to carry out
the law. The second article stated that, there was a possibility of having the federal courts
compromising the lower courts as well as the one supreme court. As it is the case with various
sections of the US constitution, the real meaning of the third article was actually left open for
judges to interpret it. After the constitution was rectified in 19789, the courts were transformed to
be federal systems. The congress established four circuit courts, 14 district courts and a supreme
The constitution could not strictly restrict the number of judges that could serve in supreme
court. Through the judiciary, the constitution was able to offer a five associate justices as well as
a one chief justice. The scope of the courts power was not however defined by the constitution.
The first chief justice had little impact on the direction of the supreme court. However, John
Marshall, the second chief justice significantly transformed the judicial system and this favored
him since he was able to serve for 34 years. It is this one seemingly simple decision on the case of
the Marbury VS Madison that made history in the US supreme court of this particular time. The
effects and changes made by this court under the leadership of Marshall are still felt and respected
Justice Marshall’s claim of the influence of judicial review was constitutional as there are
provisions relating to judicial review. While the constitution does not implicitly define the controls
of judicial assessment, the powers are termed to be consequential from Article VI and Article III.
These provisions give the courts the authority to decide the appropriate law in each case. However,
even with these provisions in place, the constitution is still the supreme edict of the land. The
courts have the task of interpreting and applying the constitution and deciding whether a statute is
in conflict with the constitution. All judges should follow the constitution as the supreme authority
in making lawful decisions. If a conflict arises, the judges are bound to consider the contradictory
decree as void and unenforceable. The Supreme Court is the final court for appeals on matters
concerning the interpretation of the constitution. Its decisions on the constitutionality of statutes
When creating the various branches of the government, the founding fathers intended them
to be balances and checks against each other. James Madison, john Jay and Alexander Hamilton
wrote an article defending the constitution in The Federalist. They elucidated that a durable
Surname 6
national administration must have built-in restraints. They claimed that you must require the
government to control the governed and itself. The constitution’s writers gave the legislative and
executive branches controls that would limit each other as well as the judiciary branch of
government. Congress had the power to denunciate and take out officials including even the
president.
Nelson reports that, the president on the other hand, had the power to restrain congress and
could appoint judges of the Supreme Court with the consent of congress. In this system of checks
and balances, the Supreme Court had no role. Judge Marshall filled this gap by establishing the
principle of judicial review. The decision in Marbury v Madison made the Supreme Court the main
authority in disputes concerning state and federal power. A section of the idea on the checks as
well as the balances is that, the supreme court might override a different government branch should
an act be unconstitutional. This created another check by the judiciary over the executive and
Works Cited
Clinton, Robert Lowry. Marbury v. Madison and judicial review. University Press of Kansas,
1989.