Explain how the case of Marbury v. Madison established the concept of judicial review. Do you think the outcome of the case could have been different with another chief justice in place? Due Wed., Jan. 6.
Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to review the acts of the executive and legislative branches of government. Since judicial review is not stated directly in the constitution it was an unresolved issue until Marbury v. Madison's ruling. In Marbury v. Madison, Marbury and three other justice appointees were denied commissions into the Supreme Court by Jefferson. Chief Justice John Marshall realized that in order for the Supreme Court to have an influential power in government it needed to have the support of one or both of the other branches. Therefore he complied with Jefferson by denying the commissions of Marbury and the other justices, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, because it was unconstitutional for the Court to accept a writ of mandamus. By siding with the executive branch the judiciary branch gained some power. Now through the supremacy clause, it has been established that the Supreme Court has power through judicial review based on the first act by John Marshall's desicion of Marbury v. Madison. I definetly believe that judiciary review would not have come about if there had been another Chief Justice another than John Marshall because John Marshall was an ardent federalist. If a Chief Justice had been a anti-federalist the Supreme Court's power may not have come about in the form of judiciary review.
William Marbury had been appointed as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia by President John Adams, but his commission was not delivered afterward. When Marbury petitioned the courts to force James Madison to deliver the documents, John Marshall and the Supreme court denied him. They decided that the statute upon which he had based his claim, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional. This was the first time the Supreme Court had declared anything "unconstitutional". So after this case, the courts decided that they have the power to "review" their previous rulings and determine whether or not they were right in making them. This landmark decision was the establishment of judicial review and therefore helped define the "checks and balances" of the American form of government. Had John Marshall not been the Chief Justice, given that he was an all-out federalist, this probably wouldn't have turned out the way it did. Then again, who knows. It might have just happened later on down the road.
Marbury v. Madison is the Supreme Court case that confirmed that the federal courts have the authority to declare laws unconstitutional. It didn't exactly create or establish the power as much as it confirmed that it is inherent in the power of the judicial branch even though the Constitution does not directly say it. This was devised by Chief Justice John Marshall (former secretary of state to John Adams) when he declared parts of the Judiciary act of 1789 unconstitutional. William Marbury was elected as a judge by Adams in the Judiciary act of 1801, but he was not commissioned by Marshall. When Jefferson became president, his secretary of state, James Madison, did not deliver the commission under the new Democratic-Republican party. This forced Marbury to turn to the Supreme court where he petitioned for a writ of mandamus (an order to force Madison to deliver his commission). Marshall's opinion was that Marbury deserved his commission, but knew Jefferson would not serve him even if it was mandated. Marshall did not want the Supreme Court to be weakened, and instead gave it strength by declaring parts of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. Therefore, he allowed Jefferson to feel like a winner, but at the same time set a precedent for all future cases and established Judicial Review, the ability of the Supreme Court to declare a federal law of Congress as unconstitutional. In my opinion if there would have been a different Chief Justice, judicial review would have eventually happened, however it wouldn't have happened this soon. Justice Marshall was a complete federalist, if an anti-federalist would have been the Chief Justice, the court would obviously not have the power of Judiciary Review.
One should not say that presidents "elect" judges. Presidents APPOINT federal judges, subject to CONFIRMATION by the Senate. In recent years the Senate has delayed and rejected a number of presidential appointments.
The power of judicial review, the power of the federal courts to determine if laws passed by Congress agree with the Constitution, was NOT given to the courts in Article III. It was established by John Marshall in this case. A judge who was using "strict interpretation" of the Constitution would NOT have reached the same decision.
Currently, several states are challenging the constitutionality of the Health Care Reform. A federal district judge in Va. has ruled that the law is not constitutional. Two other federal district judges have ruled that it is. This issue will be moving up to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to review the acts of the executive and legislative branches of government. Since judicial review is not stated directly in the constitution it was an unresolved issue until Marbury v. Madison's ruling. In Marbury v. Madison, Marbury and three other justice appointees were denied commissions into the Supreme Court by Jefferson. Chief Justice John Marshall realized that in order for the Supreme Court to have an influential power in government it needed to have the support of one or both of the other branches. Therefore he complied with Jefferson by denying the commissions of Marbury and the other justices, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, because it was unconstitutional for the Court to accept a writ of mandamus. By siding with the executive branch the judiciary branch gained some power. Now through the supremacy clause, it has been established that the Supreme Court has power through judicial review based on the first act by John Marshall's desicion of Marbury v. Madison. I definetly believe that judiciary review would not have come about if there had been another Chief Justice another than John Marshall because John Marshall was an ardent federalist. If a Chief Justice had been a anti-federalist the Supreme Court's power may not have come about in the form of judiciary review.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Marbury had been appointed as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia by President John Adams, but his commission was not delivered afterward. When Marbury petitioned the courts to force James Madison to deliver the documents, John Marshall and the Supreme court denied him. They decided that the statute upon which he had based his claim, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional. This was the first time the Supreme Court had declared anything "unconstitutional". So after this case, the courts decided that they have the power to "review" their previous rulings and determine whether or not they were right in making them. This landmark decision was the establishment of judicial review and therefore helped define the "checks and balances" of the American form of government. Had John Marshall not been the Chief Justice, given that he was an all-out federalist, this probably wouldn't have turned out the way it did. Then again, who knows. It might have just happened later on down the road.
ReplyDeleteMarbury v. Madison is the Supreme Court case that confirmed that the federal courts have the authority to declare laws unconstitutional. It didn't exactly create or establish the power as much as it confirmed that it is inherent in the power of the judicial branch even though the Constitution does not directly say it. This was devised by Chief Justice John Marshall (former secretary of state to John Adams) when he declared parts of the Judiciary act of 1789 unconstitutional. William Marbury was elected as a judge by Adams in the Judiciary act of 1801, but he was not commissioned by Marshall. When Jefferson became president, his secretary of state, James Madison, did not deliver the commission under the new Democratic-Republican party. This forced Marbury to turn to the Supreme court where he petitioned for a writ of mandamus (an order to force Madison to deliver his commission). Marshall's opinion was that Marbury deserved his commission, but knew Jefferson would not serve him even if it was mandated. Marshall did not want the Supreme Court to be weakened, and instead gave it strength by declaring parts of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. Therefore, he allowed Jefferson to feel like a winner, but at the same time set a precedent for all future cases and established Judicial Review, the ability of the Supreme Court to declare a federal law of Congress as unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion if there would have been a different Chief Justice, judicial review would have eventually happened, however it wouldn't have happened this soon. Justice Marshall was a complete federalist, if an anti-federalist would have been the Chief Justice, the court would obviously not have the power of Judiciary Review.
One should not say that presidents "elect" judges. Presidents APPOINT federal judges, subject to CONFIRMATION by the Senate. In recent years the Senate has delayed and rejected a number of presidential appointments.
ReplyDeleteThe power of judicial review, the power of the federal courts to determine if laws passed by Congress agree with the Constitution, was NOT given to the courts in Article III. It was established by John Marshall in this case. A judge who was using "strict interpretation" of the Constitution would NOT have reached the same decision.
Currently, several states are challenging the constitutionality of the Health Care Reform. A federal district judge in Va. has ruled that the law is not constitutional. Two other federal district judges have ruled that it is. This issue will be moving up to the U.S. Court of Appeals.