In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

366 bill of rights Marbury v. Madison john marshall 1803 Federalist president John Adams lost his 1800 bid for reelection to his political adversary, Thomas Jefferson, head of the new Democratic-Republican Party. After losing, but before Jefferson had replaced him in office, Adams and his Senate supporters pushed through a number of federal appointments. Their goal was to continue the Federalist Party influence by placing loyal followers in administrative and judicial posts. William Marbury was among these followers. Appointed a justice of the peace for the District of Columbia, Marbury was not allowed to take his post because James Madison, secretary of state under Thomas Jefferson , refused to deliver his commission. Marbury sued Madison , seeking to have the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus —an order telling Madison to deliver the commission. The suit went directly to the United States Supreme Court, where Chief Justice John Marshall (1755–1835) presided. Marshall, a former member of Congress from Virginia and secretary of state under John Adams, was also a staunch Federalist. He would serve as chief justice for several decades and be credited in later years with establishing a strong national judiciary that supported strong actions by the central government to bind the states to federal authority . In deciding Marbury he faced a dilemma. The Jefferson Administration would ignore any writ of mandamus, hurting the standing of the Supreme Court. But denying Marbury’s request might itself be seen as a sign of fear and weakness in the face of presidential power. Marshall followed neither course. Instead , he ruled that, while Madison should have delivered the commission, the Supreme Court had no right to issue writs of mandamus. Marshall further ruled that the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 granting the Court such powers violated the Constitution and so was null and void. By this act, Marshall has been credited with establishing the Supreme Court’s power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional and to play the pivotal role in interpreting the Constitution, which were critical steps in establishing the apportionment of powers within the federal government. In later decades, the Court’s role as interpreter of the Constitution would result in the creation of sweeping new interpretations of the Constitution and the rights of individuals and groups. After Marbury, it was not until 1857 that the Supreme Court declared another law null and void. Marbury v. Madison (5 US 187) Opinion of the Court In the order in which the court has viewed this subject, the following questions have been considered and decided. 1st Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands? 2dly. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy? 3dly. If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court? The first object of enquiry is, 1st. Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands? His right originates in an act of congress passed in February 1801, concerning the district of Columbia. After dividing the district into two counties, the 11th section of this law, enacts, “that there shall be appointed in and for each of the said counties, such number of discreet persons to be justices of the peace as the president of the United States shall, from time to time, think expedient, to continue in office for five years. It appears, from the affidavits, that in compliance with this law, a commission for William Marbury as a justice of peace for the county of Washington, was signed by John Adams, then president of the United States; after which the seal of the United States was affixed to it; but the commission has never reached the person for whom it was made out. In order to determine whether he is entitled to this commission , it becomes necessary to enquire whether he has been appointed to the office. For if he has been appointed, Marbury v. Madison 367 the law continues him in office for five years, and he is entitled to the possession of those evidences of office, which, being completed, become his property. The 2d section of the 2d article of the constitution, declares , that, “the president shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint ambassadors , other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not otherwise provided...

Share