Research Paper: Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Doctrine
Introduction
Even though the judicial review had its foundation in the early 1600s in England by James Otis, it led to a revolution in the United States (Schotten, 2004). It led to the establishment of the Court’s power to implement and enforce its laws and actions. In this case, the Court attained the ability to review the President, and Congress acts and defined them as unconstitutional. In this case, Marbury and Madison’s decision led to the development of the precedent process in the judicial review in the United States. From the decision made in the case by Chief Justice Marshall, the Court has since assumed the mandate for reviewing the acts of the President and the Congress in the American Constitution. Therefore, to effectively illustrate the legacy of judicial review, this paper addresses the description of an exact scenario of Marbury v. Madison’s and its effects on the Judicial Doctrine. Besides, it provides Marshall’s reasoning behind the decision that could disprove the laws and, bylastly evaluation of the consistency of judicial review with the Constitution and its positive impact in the American politics.
A briefing on the case
The main cause of this case is the petition Marbury filed to Court. In particular, the genesis of the case was the forty-two appointments President John Adams made on his last day in office. He had appointed forty-two people, who would serve as peace justices in the District of Columbia. Among those who were appointed was Marbury and that is why he is a central figure in this case. Although, Adams had appointed Marbury a justice of Peace in this District, his appointment did not take effect since Adams had already left office and its inherent powers (Woodward et al., 2016). Therefore, Marbury moved to Court to petition it to order Madison, who was the newly appointed Secretary of State during Thomas Jefferson’s tenure, to deliver his appointment.
Marshall did not deliver the commissions before the expiry of President Adams term in office. As a result, Jefferson did not honor those commissions because they had not been delivered before Adams exit from office. Therefore, he felt the appointments were invalid. At the time, Marbury was filing a petition to have a mandamus; Marshall was performing in Chief Justice’s capacity at the highest Court. (Valcore & Pfeffer, 2018). Therefore, he was to preside over the ruling in the case. On hearing the case, he found that Madison’s failure to deliver the commissions were illegal. However, the Court ruled that Madison had no mandate to hand over Marbury’s commissions.
In this case, the main issue is whether Marbury had a right for the commission or whether his appointment was valid. Indeed the appointment was valid given that it was done when Adams was still in office as President. He completed the whole appointment process, and all that was remaining was delivering the commissions. The President played his part in making the appointments, and that was the most important thing. Delivering the commissions was beyond his mandate; neither was it his responsibility. Therefore, Marbury had the right to claim the appointment since he had received it from the President himself while still in office. In particular, the government’s role is to protect its citizens’ rights as provided in the constitution.
Another debatable issue, in this case, was whether Court had judicial review power in the case. The Judiciary Act enacted in 1789 had conferred to Court the powers to review writs of mandamus constantly. However, on the same note, Article III of the constitution makes it unconstitutional for the Court to review the writs of mandamus. Therefore, there is a lot of contradiction between the two laws. Court being one of the institutions mandated with upholding the constitution on to the latter, it had an obligation to adopt Article III in making a ruling in this case (Woodward et al., 2016). Chief Justice James Marshall noted that it was pointless to have Court, which could not protect the Constitution. He further noted that the Court was mandated with enforcing laws that had been passed by Congress.
A summary of the Marbury v. Madison (1803) case is that Court was ready to protect Constitution by declaring Congress’s act as avoid if it was not constitutional. However, Thomas Jefferson refused to honor Marbury’s appointment, claiming that commissions’ delivery was belated (Siegel, Schmalleger & Worrall, 2018). As a result, Marbury teamed up with three of his fellow appointees facing the same problem and filed a petition to have a writ of mandamus, which could compel Madison to deliver the commissions.
However, Chief Justice James Marshall threw out the petition and declined Marbury’s demand to have the writ issued. Even though he noted in his ruling that the petitioners had a right to have their commissions delivered, he held that Court did not have the powers to issue a ruling because it is not provided in the constitution on. In his ruling, Marshall noted that Section 13 of the Act was stated contrary to what was provided in the constitution. This meant that the Court could not handle the writs (Woodward et al., 2016).
Essentially, this ruling contributed to changing the US judicial system. In particular, the ruling contributed to an increase in the powers bestowed on Court. The most immediate effect was to deny the Court certain powers. In the long-run, however, the powers of the Court were increased with some rules being established.
The concept of judicial review
Judicial review is defined as powers of a branch of the judiciary to prohibit the executive and other government arms from acting contrary to the Constitution (Woodward et al., 2016). The Marbury v. Madison case set a stage for demonstrating the concept of judicial review. It is important to note that before making a ruling on the case, Justice James Marshall embarked on finding the answer to whether Court had the power to issue the writs of mandamus. It was in the process of trying to seek an answer to this question that the concept of the judicial review came to light. Furthermore, Marshall argued that granting the writ would mean that the ruling should be extended to other cases presented in the future. Such cases were referred to as original jurisdiction (Valcore & Pfeffer, 2018). This derived from the fact that they were to be determined by the Supreme Course, but at the same time follow Constitution strictly. Therefore, he considered the case as an original jurisdiction whose ruling was to follow Constitution. However he noted that the Congress had exceeded its authority by including Marburys case in original jurisdiction (Siegel, Schmalleger & Worrall, 2018). As a result he felt the Congress was acting contrary to Constitution and therefore, Court needed to come out and defend Constitution.
As noted in previous sections, the ruling of this case contributed significantly to determining Court’s powers. After Marshall’s ruling, Court had powers to determine whether acts of the Congress and other branches of the government were Constitutional or not, however, it is important to remember that the Court had no powers to make interpretations of constitution on without consulting other judiciary branches. Despite that, it had similar powers to the President and the Congress.
The Factual Circumstances of the Case and Court’s Holding
Marbury v. Madison’s case originated in the context of a political clash between Adam’s administration, who was in power at the moment, and Jefferson, who was taking over. The case was initially at the Judicial in the Federal level (Schotten, 2004). When Adam was concluding his reign, he appointed a person from the federal party to preserve the party’s legacy in the government. When Jefferson took over the leadership, his administration abolished a law implemented to guide several judge rulings. For instance, Marbury gained the ability to sue the state’s secretary, Madison, to provide a commission to enable him to keep his career (Carlson, 2017). William Marbury was a citizen of Maryland who, at the time, was aspiring to become the justice of the Peace. The case created a dilemma for Marshall in a way that if he the court rule and assert that Madison was to issue his commission to Marbury, then there was a high likelihood of Jefferson asking Madison to disregard the Court’s ruling. The action, as a result, could imply the Court’s weakness.
Chief justice John Marshall however, made a decision that was satisfactory and vital to every citizen until today (Akers, 2017). In his ruling, he stated that Marbury, as the justice of Peace, had a right to make the appointment, rebuking Jefferson for the position not being offered to him. Marshal explained that there was no problem with Marbury reclaiming what he had been offered. He further explained and concluded with the reason for Court not offering a remedy. He stated that the Act of Judiciary of 1789, which had issued the Court the mandate to enforce orders to the government members, was unconstitutional in the sense that it broadens Court’s responsibility above the constitutional permission. Therefore, the Court was unable to act on behalf of Marbury.
Thomas Jeffersons quote
His quote in the letter addressed to W.C. Jarvis, clearly shows how Thomas Jefferson was a staunch advocate of decentralized power. He argued that giving powers to the federal government to judge the extent of its authority was dangerous. Therefore, he was always concerned about the extent of powers bestowed on the federal judiciary. He felt that leaving every constitutional matter to the judiciary was dangerous because judges can change the Constitution in their favor. This means that they can be in office for life given that they are not in an elective post. In my view, Jefferson felt that those in elective positions are better of if left to make decisions to do with the Constitution because they are always held accountable by those who elected them. They can also in engage in corrupt deals knowing that the Constitutional will act in their favor.
Chief Justice Marshall’s reasoning in reaching the conclusion
In reaching his decision, Marshall reasoned that the Congress acts in disagreement with the Constitution were merely a law. He termed the acts of Congress as non-binding in the Court. Therefore, the first responsibility from the judicial service is to uphold the nation Constitution (Bloch, 2001). He stated that if there exists a conflict between two laws, Court was responsible for deciding on the applicable law to any of the presented cases. With this regard, he ruled that Jefferson, through his secretary, Madison had no right to prevent Marbury from attaining the office of justice of Peace.
Usurpation of power
The ruling Marshall makes is mainly centered on the concept of judicial review. Marshalls ruling in this case eventually gave powers to Court to review acts of the Congress to determine whether they are constitutional or not. This ruling marked the assumption of power for the Court which is not provided for in the Constitution. It is equally important to note that since the Court got judicial review powers, it has objected numerous powers of the executive claiming that they are not provided in the Constitution.
Analysis of the Judicial review and its Consistency with the Constitution in the American Politics
Judicial review evaluates the actions of administrative, legislation, and determine if such actions are consistent with the constitutional ammeters (The Library of Congress, 2018). The decision made in Marbury v. Madison’s case played a significant role in the American Constitution and politics until today. Since the declaration of the act as unconstitutional, the judicial review has become the foundation for Court’s ruling. With the judicial review, Court has a full mandate to make decisions on the constitutional laws that have been passed by Congress. The constancy of this judicial review has led to the preservation of the rule of law. The doctrine of this judicial review has been of a positive impact on American politics. For instance, the modern democratic nature of American currently has substantial respect for the rule of law as a result of the judicial review. In addition, the democratic nature of the United States has since abode by the rule of law and thus developing provision for the judicial review.
Conclusion
The ruling made by Marshall in the Marbury v Madison was Constitutional. This is because despite there being contradiction between constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789, he followed constitution in making the ruling. This ruling helped in improving the system of checks in other branches of government given that it contributed to the judicial review process.
