Browse through the curated selection of our completed assessments to get a sense of the quality and depth of our work. Whether you need guidance, inspiration, or just want to evaluate our work, this page is your go-to resource.
Marbury V. Madison is termed as the most significant event in the United States Supreme Court history. The case established the grounds for judicial review in the United States using the provisions of Article III. The final decision also defined the boundaries within which the judicial and executive branches of the government operate. This made the judiciary an independent arm of the government at par with congress and the executive.
During the presidential elections of 1800, Thomas Jefferson, a democratic republican, won and became the third President of the United States but he was not in power until March 4, 1801. During this interim period, the outgoing president Adams still controlled a lame-duck government together with the sixth congress. It was also during this period that the congress approved the Judiciary Act of 1801 as a modification to the Judiciary Act of 1789. Adams chose numerous justices whose commissions were signed by the president, approved by the senate, and had the government’s official seal. For the commissions to be effective, they had to be delivered to the appointees, a task that fell on James Madison. Some of the appointed judges never received their commissions and when President Jefferson got into office on March 5, he asked James Madison, the then Secretary of State, to withhold delivery of the remaining commissions. William Marbury was among the appointed judges who never got their commissions. He then filed a case in the Supreme Court for a legal order to demand that Madison give the reason why he never delivered the commissions, as was his responsibility.
When making a final decision on the issue, Chief Justice Marshall had to consider three controversial problems. First, according to the constitution, was Marbury entitled to the commission he claimed? Second, was it constitutional for the court to issue such an order? Third, did the Supreme Court have the authority to grant such a writ in this case? In answering the first question, Judge Marshall determined that Marbury got his appointment in accordance with the constitution and he therefore, should have received the commission (Madison 1800). Secondly, because Marbury had gotten the appointment legally, the law should provide him a remedy for his plight. Chief Justice Marshall continued and said that it was the court’s responsibility to stand up for the rights of the citizens even from the lawmakers (Madison 1800)
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 issuance of a writ of mandamus was the correct remedy to this situation (Marshall 1803). Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 became unconstitutional when considering cases of original jurisdiction. Article III stipulates that the provision only applies to civil servants and other state officials or to proceedings to which the state is part. Congress had surpassed its authority when it extended the court’s prior jurisdiction to comprise Marbury (Clinton 1989). It is the courts duty to uphold the constitution when it collides with an act of congress. This is because the constitution is the supreme law of the land according to Article VI. This decision denied Marbury of his commission and affirmed the court’s authority to review acts of congress (Marshall 1803). Chief Justice Marshall established the courts as an interpreter of the constitution (though not the only one) which, established the court as an equal and independent branch of the government.
Judicial review is the ability and authority that a court possesses to review a treaty, statute, or administrative regulation to establish its compliance with the constitution (Nelson 2000). In the United States, the power of judicial review is contingent on the history, provisions, and structure of the constitution. This power began when Chief justice Marshall made his landmark decision in Marbury V Madison. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts can and should review acts of congress and invalidate them if they are deemed as unconstitutional (Nelson 2000). The judicial review concept is now well established with courts quoting the Marbury v. Madison case when declaring the judicial authority.
Thomas meant that the integrity and impartiality of judges should also come under review from time to time. In the same letter, Jefferson argues that judges have job security as they are appointed for life. They are therefore, not subject to elective control and hence, less responsible. If they stay in office for long enough, they become drunk on power and may not always make constitutional decisions. When this happens, they may make decisions that contradict with those of the law makers (congress). Decisions in which the courts usurp the constitutionally granted authority of the people in a just democratic polity are incorrect and unconstitutional. Any such ruling usurps the just authority of the people to govern themselves through the constitutional procedures of deliberative democracy.
In reaction to Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, Thomas Jefferson warned that judicial review would lead to a form 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 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. If the Supreme Court had overruled the decision of congress, then they would have been acting out of their jurisdiction powers. Congress had acted well within their constitutional powers in issuing the appointment and had followed the appropriate procedures.
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 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 durable 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. 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. Part of the idea of Checks and Balances, is that the Supreme Court can override another branch of government, if an act is unconstitutional. This created another check by the judiciary over the executive and enhanced the overall system of checks and balances.
Clinton, R. L. (1989). Marbury v. Madison and judicial Review (pp. 5-6). Lawrence, KS:
University Press of Kansas.
Madison, M. V. (1800). Marbury v. Madison. Timeline, 1801.
Marshall, C. J. J. (1803). Marbury v. Madison. Domestic Expansion and Foreign
Entanglement, 4, 1797-1820.
Nelson, W. E. (2000). Marbury v Madison: The Origins of Judicial Review.
All orders at our writing service are delivered exceptionally for research purposes.