Skip to content

Marbury vs. Madison

Background

  • Name of the Case: Marbury v. Madison
  • Year Decided: 1803
  • Facts: The case originates from the end of President John Adams' term in 1801. In his final days in office, Adams appointed several Federalist Party members to serve as justices of the peace and judges in the District of Columbia. These last-minute appointments were part of what came to be known as the "Midnight Judges" incident. William Marbury was among those appointed as a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. However, his commission was not delivered before President Thomas Jefferson took office. Jefferson, opposing the Federalist efforts to fill the judiciary with their supporters, instructed his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the commissions. Marbury then petitioned the Supreme Court to compel Madison to deliver his commission through a writ of mandamus.
  • Issue: The primary legal question was whether Marbury had the right to his commission and, if so, whether the law provided him a remedy. Furthermore, it questioned whether the Supreme Court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel Madison to deliver the commission.
  • Decision: The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, decided unanimously that while Marbury was entitled to his commission, the Court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandanus to enforce it. The Court held that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 enabling Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was unconstitutional because it extended the Court's original jurisdiction beyond what was specified in Article III of the Constitution.
  • Majority Decision Reasoning: Chief Justice John Marshall reasoned that Marbury had a right to his commission as it had been legally appointed and sealed. However, the Judiciary Act of 1789, which Marbury relied on to bring his claim directly to the Supreme Court, was found to be in conflict with the Constitution. The Constitution defines the scope of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, and Congress cannot expand it through legislation. Thus, the Court could not issue a writ of mandamus as Marbury requested.
  • Dissenting Opinion Reasoning: In the case of Marbury v. Madison, there was no dissenting opinion as the decision was unanimous.
  • Impact of the Case: Marbury v. Madison is one of the most significant cases in American legal history as it established the principle of judicial review. This principle gives the courts the power to declare laws and actions of the executive and legislative branches unconstitutional, thereby affirming the judiciary's role as a co-equal branch of government with the power to check and balance the other branches. This case solidified the judiciary's role in American government and has had a profound impact on the development of American constitutional law.

Questions

  • In what ways does this statement reflect Marshall's understanding of the goal and intent of separation of powers and checks and balances?

    Marshall's decision in Marbury v. Madison reflects a deep understanding of the separation of powers and checks and balances as foundational principles of the United States government. By asserting the power of judicial review, Marshall underscores the judiciary's role as an independent and equal branch of government tasked with ensuring that the actions of the other branches comply with the Constitution. This interpretation underscores the intent of the Framers to create a system where no single branch could dominate or unilaterally expand its powers without checks from the others.

  • What does the statement tell us about Justice Marshall's judicial philosophy and his view of the role of the Court in our political system?

    Justice Marshall's judicial philosophy, as evidenced by this case, places a strong emphasis on the supremacy of the Constitution and the judiciary's role in upholding it. He viewed the Court as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional interpretation, a guardian of the Constitution that ensures the other branches do not exceed their constitutional bounds. This reflects a belief in a robust role for the Court in our political system, not as a participant in politics but as a neutral arbiter of constitutional law.

  • What is Marshall's viewpoint about the power of an executive to order officials to carry out his wishes?

    Marshall's decision suggests a view that executive power, while broad, is not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of the Constitution. He implies that officials, including the President, cannot act in ways that contravene the Constitution or fail to fulfill legally mandated duties, highlighting a limitation on executive discretion.

  • What is Marshall asserting about the role of Congress?

    Marshall asserts that Congress has significant but not unlimited powers. While it can legislate broadly within its constitutional authorities, it cannot enact laws that violate the Constitution. This emphasizes Congress's role in governing but within the limits set by the constitutional framework.

  • How does this passage describe the formal presidential role of chief executive?

    The decision does not explicitly detail the presidential role of chief executive, but by implication, it suggests that the President's duty is to execute the laws within the framework of the Constitution, highlighting the president's role in ensuring the lawful functioning of the government.

  • What is Marshall's viewpoint about how language in the Constitution should be interpreted?

    Marshall advocates for a textual and principled interpretation of the Constitution, suggesting that the document's language should be understood in its historical and practical context to preserve the rule of law and the intentions of the Framers.

  • Why does Marshall emphasize that the Constitution both defines and limits the powers of Congress?

    By emphasizing that the Constitution both defines and limits the powers of Congress, Marshall highlights the document's role as the supreme law of the land, from which all government authority is derived and by which all government action must be constrained.

  • How does Marshall distinguish limited and unlimited powers—and their effects?

    Marshall distinguishes between limited powers, which are explicitly granted and constrained by the Constitution, and unlimited powers, which the government does not possess. He argues that recognizing the government's powers as limited is essential to preserving liberty and preventing tyranny.

  • What are two alternative views of the role of the Constitution that Marshall addresses?

    Marshall addresses the view that the Constitution is a broad, flexible guide versus the view that it is a legal document with specific, enforceable limits. He advocates for the latter, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the text and intent of the Constitution to preserve the rule of law.

  • Why is it important to establish that the Constitution is more important than ordinary federal law?

    Establishing the Constitution's supremacy over ordinary federal law is crucial because it ensures that all laws and governmental actions are grounded in the highest legal authority, preventing arbitrary or unjust laws that could undermine democratic principles and individual rights.

  • To what extent are you convinced by Marshall's argument that courts must determine whether acts of the legislature are constitutional given that judicial review is never mentioned in the Constitution?

    Even though judicial review is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, Marshall argues convincingly that it is implied through the document's structure and the judiciary's role as an interpreter of the law. This is essential for maintaining the Constitution's supremacy and ensuring that legislative and executive actions remain within constitutional bounds.

  • Why would it be contradictory to allow Congress to pass laws that go against the constitution?

    Allowing Congress to pass laws that go against the Constitution would undermine the document's authority and the fundamental principles of the republic, leading to arbitrary governance and erosion of rights and liberties.

  • Why is a written constitution the greatest improvement on political institutions?

    A written constitution is hailed as a significant improvement on political institutions because it provides a clear, authoritative text that governs the nation, ensuring stability, predictability, and protection against arbitrary rule.

  • In this part of the decision, Marshall emphasizes the constitution's importance in establishing the rule of law by mentioning unfair laws such as bills of attainder, insisting that the constitution requires rules of evidence.

    Marshall emphasizes the importance of the Constitution in establishing the rule of law, particularly by protecting against unfair laws and practices, thereby underscoring the need for a legal framework that safeguards individual rights and limits governmental power.

  • Describe an alternative perspective to Marshall's view that the role of the judiciary is to interpret the constitution.

    An alternative perspective to Marshall's might argue for a more restrained role for the judiciary in interpreting the Constitution, suggesting that the elected branches (legislative and executive) should have more leeway in determining the constitutionality of their actions, based on a principle of democratic governance or majoritarian rule. This view might emphasize the risks of judicial overreach and the importance of deference to the political decisions of elected officials, arguing for a more limited role for the courts in constitutional matters.