Marbury v Madison

OPVL

Judiciary Acts

Origin: This document is a transcript of the speech given by John Marshall to the court in 1803, ultimately deciding the case of Marbury vs. Madison. John Marshall is an important person in this case because he is the Chief Justice, which gives him a powerful influence on the decision of the case.

Purpose: The purpose of this document is to give justification to the final decision made by the supreme court. Its intended audience was the people present at the time of the hearing, but can be of interest to any citizen or government official.

Value: The value of this document is that it serves as a precedent for the exercise of judicial review by the Supreme Court. Judicial review is the power given to the Supreme Court in which it can determine the constitutionality of laws passed by the executive and legislative branches. In the document, John Marshall's stance on the issue was that it was unconstitutional for him to force congress to appoint Marbury to "Justice of the Peace". Therefore, Marbury did not have to be appointed to his deserved position. The decision made by the Supreme Court expresses how our country was still in a constructive state, and that the branches of government were still figuring out their powers in relation to each other. However, the document made it clear that the the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution could not be overruled.

Limitations: One limitation of this document is that it does not give the perspectives of Marbury or Madison. While Marshall does mention what Marbury is entitled to, he does not discuss the personal sentiments of the two men. Therefore, we cannot fully understand the arguments of the opposing sides, this would require a separate document. This document is more focused on the roles of the Supreme Court and Congress and how they have an influence on the final decision.

-Congress filled in the missing details of the judicial branch that was not fully explained in the Constitution

Judiciary Act of 1789

• created national court system
• 3 circuit courts (do not hold trials, only hear cases passed by lower courts)
• 13 district courts (general trials)
• headed by the Supreme Court (settled differences between state and federal laws)

Judiciary Act of 1801

• decreased number of Supreme Court justices
• increased number of federal judges

Marbury V Madison

• William Marbury- midnight judge and Federalist
• James Madison- newly appointed secretary of state representing Jefferson
• Chief Justice John Marshall decided the case
• was a landmark case for the U.S. Supreme Court
• occurred in 1803
• case arose when President Jefferson tried to deny the appointments of Federalist judges
• James Madison, under Jefferson's orders, never delivered the official papers giving Marbury authority as justice of the peace
• Marbury sued Madison, ordering that he is able to take office, and according to the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Court had the power to do so
• helped define the boundary between the judicial and executive branches

Marbury v Madison

Judicial Review

Midnight Judges

• court ruled Madison victory (Thomas Jefferson's side)
• declared part of Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional
• case established judicial review
• enables courts to decide whether laws passed by Congress are constitutional
• allows federal courts to review state laws and state court decisions to determine if they are in keeping with the Constitution

Long Term Impacts

• John Adams appointed judges right before the end of his presidency
• appointed group of Federalist judges for life
• did so to leave power behind when he was gone
• Marbury was a midnight judge
• caused the Marbury v Madison case

• Established court's authority as the final word on constitutionally of legislation and executive acts
• Supreme Court ruled that judicial review was allowed although not a power explicitly granted in the Constitution
• The doctrine of judicial review enabled the Court to check power of the Legislative and Executive branches by preventing them from imposing legislation that violated citizens' constitutional rights.
• The decision expanded the power of the Supreme Court, and established the Judicial branch as co-equal to the Legislative and Executive branches.
• Federalists won "argument"

Foreign Policy

• The Supreme Court has often refused to review cases related to foreign affairs on the grounds that they are "political questions," which are solvable only by the political branches of government, Congress and the president.
• Judicial abstention in questions involving foreign affairs is controversial.This is because The Constitution provides no expressed powers for the judiciary in foreign affairs. The general foreign affairs powers distributed to the legislative and executive branches are clearly stated although the specifics are vague.

Fitting the Ideals of Thomas Jefferson

Long Term Impacts

Cont.

The case of Marbury v Madison did fit the beliefs of Jefferson because it supported a weak centralized government by insisting the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Marshall's ruling not only declared the Judiciary Act unconstitutional, it strengthened the Supreme Court with the power of judicial review. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court the power to declare Congress's laws unconstitutional. Marshall states that, "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written." He is stating that it is unconstitutional to disobey what is already written in the foundation of our nation. He then goes on to say, "To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?" This is a further statement of the potential corruptness of the government if they disobey the restraints that were set by them, for them.

• Marbury v. Madison ruling established a new, more critical role for the US Supreme Court in the development of American government.

• In declaring the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, Chief Justice Marshall set the precedent for the Court's power of judicial review, the right to review and take action against any legislation—local, state, or federal—it deems to be unconstitutional.

• Domestic policy may also face challenges in the courts. In many countries, courts have the power of judicial review, which allows them to strike down any legislative or executive action that they find in violation of the nation's constitution.
• This Judicial Review may cause domestic policy's in the United States of America to hardly ever be passed due to Courts power being able to take actions on many different levels.