Surname 1

Student’s name:

Professor’s name:

Course:

Date:

Marbury vs. Madison

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 review in the United States by use of the

provisions of Article III. The final decision for this case defined the limits within which the judicial

and executive parts of the government operates. This was an excellent 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 a ruling that led to a total transformation of 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 1801 modifying the law 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 efficient, 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 a 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 considered three controversial problems. Firstly, by the constitution, he had to determine

if Marbury was entitled to the standard 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 been given 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 lawmakers.

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 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 a part. The Congress had already

surpassed the authority it had when it was extending the court's previous decision to comprise
 Surname 3

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 with 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

whenever they want to declare a legal authority.

As asserted by Marshall, President Thomas claimed that the integrity, as well as the

impartiality of the judges, has to come under a review on a regular basis. In the same note, the

president argued that judges are to enjoy the security of tenure as 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 lawmakers (Congress). According to the president Jefferson’s letter

in response to the Chief Justice assertion, he said that such ruling tends to usurp the just authority
 Surname 4

of the people who wish to govern themselves via the set constitutional procedures in a deliberative

democracy. Reacting to the judgment 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 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 when executing

their duties.

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 the 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 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 court. In

every of the 13 states, a district court was set.

 Surname 5

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 five associate justice as well as a

one chief justice. The scope of the court's 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 to date

in the US court system.

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 requirements 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

conflicts with the constitution. All judges should follow the constitution as the supreme authority

in making legal 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 of appeals on matters

concerning the interpretation of the constitution. Its decisions on the constitutionality of statutes

are final and binding.

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 strong national
 Surname 6

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

primary 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 enhanced the overall system of checks and balances.

 Surname 7

Works Cited
Clinton, Robert Lowry. Marbury v. Madison and judicial review. University Press of Kansas,
1989.

Madison, M. V. Marbury v. Madison. Timeline, 1801. (1800).

Marshall, C. J. J. Marbury v. Madison. Domestic Expansion and Foreign

Entanglement, 4, 1797-1820. (1803).

Nelson, W. E. Marbury v Madison: The Origins of Judicial Review. (2000).