marbury v madison english

7/21/2019 MARBURY v Madison English

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marbury-v-madison-english 1/32

MARBURY v. MADISON

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I

Prof. Yanira Reyes Gil



“We are under a Constitution, but the

Constitution is what the judges say it is”

-Charles Evans Hughes, 1907



he de!ision "arties#

Histori!al ba!$ground Who was in %ower#

What was really the issue#



Election of 1800

vs.

John Adams(Federalist)

Thomas Jefferson(Democratic-Republican)



Under President Adams

John Marshall

&erved as &e!retary o' &tate

Had %layed a $ey role in sha%ing (rti!le ))) *+udi!ial ran!h in . & Constitution



Chief Justie

John !arshall A"a#s$ Seretary of State %ea#e Chief Justie on

January &'( ')*' Tho#as Jefferson$s ousin Re+eate"ly onfir#e" the

su+re#ay of fe"eral la,over state la,

Su++orte" an e-+ansiverea"in of the enu#erate"+o,ers.



And the outcome of the elections reveal thenext president of the United States is...

Thomas Jefferson(Democratic-Republican)

Wins the Election!!!

/e"eralists ha" not only lost the Presi"eny 0ut they also lost ontrol in Conress.



November 1800

1letion2ay

March 1801

Ne, Presi"entTa3es Offie

/ear that /e"eralist Party ,ill no loner e-ist

/e"eralist Conress +asses the Ju"iiary

At of ')*' an" the Orani At of ')*'

The Act gae Adams the poer to appoint seeral ne federal "udgesand "ustices of the peace before he left office#



President Adams signs appointments for many new federal udges. !is Secretary of State was instructed to deliver the

commissions.

"ut not all were delivered #efore

President Adams left o$ce.

!i"niht Ju"es



"efore leaving o$ce% President Adams appoints &ohn 'arshall as (hief &ustice of the US Supreme (ourt

John Marshall

(!tually served as both &e!retary o' &tate and Chie' +usti!e o' the .&

&u%re/e Court in 101 'or "resident (da/s be'ore (da/s le't o''i!e



)ow% we must introduce...

One of the 4u"es a++ointe" 0y

Presi"ent A"a#s that "i" not reeive

his o##ission

So #any o##issions( they oul" not all 0e

"elivere"(

inlu"in !ar0ury$s Co##ission555

William $arbur%

Senate A++rove"

Co##ission 2ra,n U+

Seretary of State Seal

Co##ission 2elivere" 0y

John !arshall 6S of S7 NO

Commission Checklist



)ow President &e*erson ta+es o$ce and he learns of Adams,s attempt

to pac+ the (ourt with -ederalists. President &e*erson instructs his

Secretary of State &ames 'adison to refuse the appointments.

Presi"ent Tho#as Jefferson Seretary of State Ja#es !a"ison



want my o#/// 'ar#ury appeals directly to the United

States Supreme (ourt to gain hisappointment. !e wanted the Supreme(ourt to issue an order forcing Secretaryof State &ames 'adison to give 'ar#uryhis (ommission.

"asis of argument he &udiciary Act2Enacted #y (ongress3 gives the Supreme(ourt the power to issue such an order.24riginal &urisdiction3



5emem#er who is the (hief &ustice

John Marshall-ormer Secretary of State

Appointed as (hief &ustice #y President Adams in 1801



(!!ording to 2arshall,

what are the issues#1 “Has the a%%li!ant a right to the !o//ission

he de/ands#”

What does it /ean#3 “)' he has a right, and that right has been

violated, do the laws o' this !ountry a''ord

hi/ a re/edy#4 “)' they a''ord hi/ a re/edy, is a mandamus

issuing 'ro/ this !ourt#



How did the !ourt solved the 'irst two issues#

Was there a logi!al order#

5n the third issue, how did the !ourt de!ide# 6ationale#

What sour!es it used#



6uestion 1 7oes 'ar#ury have a rightto the (ommission

And the 9nal answer to 6uestion 1 is:

&E'When the seal as affied

Chief Justie !arshall8

Where there is a right there must be a

remed%#

**$arbur% ins +uestion ,**



6uestion ; 7oes 'ar#ury have the right tota+e the case to the Supreme (ourt

(4)-<(///

Judiciar% Act of

,./

The Su+re#e Court

has oriinal

4uris"ition in thisase.

0' 1onstitution

Article 3:

The Su+re#e Court

has oriinal 4uris"ition in s+eifi

ases only.



&tatutes in !on'li!t

+udi!iary (!t o' 179, 14 “he &u%re/e Court shall also have a%%ellate

jurisdi!tion 'ro/ the !ir!uit !ourts and !ourts o'the several states, in the !ases herein a'ter

%rovided 'or8 and shall have %ower to issue writs

o' %rohibition to the distri!t !ourts and writs

o' /anda/us to any !ourts a%%ointed, or %ersons holding o''i!e, under the authority o' the

.nited &tates”



&tatutes in !on'li!t

.& Const art ))), 3 Clause 3

)n all Cases a''e!ting (/bassadors, other %ubli!

2inisters and Consuls, and those in whi!h a &tate

shall be a "arty, the su%re/e Court shall have

original +urisdi!tion )n all the other Cases :within

the judi!ial %ower o' the .nited &tates;, the su%re/e

Court shall have a%%ellate +urisdi!tion, both as to<aw and =a!t, with su!h E>!e%tions, and under su!h

6egulations as the Congress shall /a$e



6uestion ;And the 9nal answer to 6uestion ; is:

23The 1ommission cannot be granted#

The United States Constitution is the Supreme Law ofthe Land.

That setion of the Ju"iiary At is unonstitutional.



(nalysis

+urisdi!tion ?id the !ourt had jurisdi!tion#

How did the !ourt justi'ied this de!ision#

Would i' have /ade a di''eren!e i' the !ourt de!ided this

issue 'irst#



Unanimous decision n a unanimous decision% written #y &ustice

'arshall% the (ourt stated that 'ar#ury% indeed%had a right to his commission.

"ut it also ruled that the (ourt had no urisdiction 2or power3 in the case and could notforce &e*erson and 'adison to seat 'ar#ury. he

&udiciary Act of 1=8> gave the Supreme (ourt urisdiction% #ut the US (onstitution did not.

he (ourt,s 9rst responsi#ility is to uphold the(onstitution. ?hen there is a con@ict% the(onstitution prevails.



(nalysis

Could have 2arshall de!ide di''erent on the

jurisdi!tion issue#

Why didn@t he de!ide that#

Could 2arbury have gone to an lower !ourt#

)s this de!ision !ontradi!tory# Why#



Possi#le 5easons he (ommission was for a lower court

that expired in years% so it could have

expired #y the time the case was over.

he case could have ust #een a plot to

try to aggravate the con@ict #etween the

-ederalists and the 7emocraticB

5epu#licans.

'ar#ury could have moved on to a new

o#.



(nalysis

Who won#

Charles Warren *The Supreme Court in the US History, 1933 argues the /ain %roble/ with 6e%ubli!ans *+e''erson with

this de!ision was that 2arshall de!ided the &u%re/e Court

!ould intervene with the e>e!utive



&udicial 5eview he (ourt,s ruling meant the Supreme (ourt had the

power of udicial review. hat is% the (ourt had theright to review acts of (ongress and% #y extension%

actions of the President. f the (ourt found that a lawwas unconstitutional% it could invalidate the law.

'arshall argued that the (onstitution is theCsupreme law of the landD and that the Supreme(ourt has the 9nal say over the meaning of the

(onstitution. !e wrote% CIt is emphatically theprovince and duty of the judicial departmentto say what the law is.”



(nalysis

)s judi!ial review !onstitutional#

?i''erent views on the ne!essity o' judi!ialreview



2arshall@s argu/ents

he !onstitution is “the 'unda/ental and %ara/ountlaw o' the nation” )t was ne!essary to %resent the!onstitution as a regulatory do!u/ent and not /erely

de!laratory to deter/ineA “that an a!t o' thelegislature, re%ugnant to the Constitution, ) void”

he Constitution is a do!u/ent that !ourts !anre!ogniBe, inter%ret and a%%ly hus, !ourts have the

%ower to adjudi!ate HE !orre!t !onstitutionalinter%retation



HE56 5= +.?)C)(< 6ED)EW

1 he %eo%le e>er!ised sovereignty when ado%tingConstitution

3 he Constitution is a 'unda/ental, enduring law

4 &tatutes, e>e!utive a!ts, and a!ts o' states are lesser lawsre'le!ting te/%orary, 'leeting views

=leeting laws and a!ts *even those re'le!ting /ajorities that!on'li!t with 'unda/ental law /ust be disregarded

F he &u%re/e Court is in the best %osition to inter%ret and %reserve the Constitution



?hat actually happened to'ar#ury

'ar#ury went on to #ecome presidentof a #an+ in the eorgetown section

of ?ashington in 181F.

!e died in 18G% the same year as &ohn'arshall.

/ro#8 Year0oo3 '9:: Su+re#e Court ;istorial Soiety



Case$s I#+at

<ey role in #a3in the Su+re#e Court

a se+arate 0ranh of overn#ent on

+ar ,ith Conress an" the e-eutive 1sta0lishe" Ju"iial Revie,

forever after the Su+re#e Court has ha"

the +o,er to rule la,s unonstitutional. No other la,s rule" unonstitutional for

another =* years > until ')=:

marbury v madison english

Documents