Was the Judiciary Act of 1801 repealed?

Answer 1

No. The Judiciary Act of 1789 extended to the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over all writs of mandamus, a power the Constitution did not specifically enumerate as one of the Court's areas of original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Marshall, determined a portion of the Act unconstitutional in the landmark decision Marbury v. Madison, (1803).

Marshall's ruling was controversial because, in declaring Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, and refusing to carry out its mandate, he asserted the authority of "judicial review." This allowed the Supreme Court to evaluate Congressional and Presidential acts to determine whether they were constitutional, and to overrule them if they were not. Judicial review enhanced the power of the Court, and strengthened the foundation of the U.S. government's system of checks and balances.

In the Judiciary Act of 1801, Congress expanded the federal judicial system by adding more District and Circuit courts, which allowed then-President John Adams to appoint 16 members of his Federalist party to powerful judgeships before he left office. It also reduced the size of the Supreme Court from six Justices to five; however, no vacancies occurred on the Court before Thomas Jefferson's new administration overturned the legislation, so the Supreme Court never had fewer than six Justices.

The Judiciary Act of 1801 enhanced John Adam's power in the waning days of his Presidency, but didn't have a long-term effect on the Executive branch, nor did it relate to "judicial review," a power reserved for the head of the Judicial branch of government, the Supreme Court (see the Judiciary Act of 1789). Judicial review is an implied power that is not explicitly stated in the Constitution or in any legislation.

Answer 2

Yes. The Judiciary Act of 1801, which expanded the federal court system and allowed President John Adams to pack the Judicial Branch with members of his Federalist Party was repealed by the new Congress (Repeal Act of March 8, 1802) after Thomas Jefferson succeeded Adams in office.

Congress passed a replacement, the Judiciary Act of 1802, on April 29, 1802, in order to rid themselves of the sixteen new Federalist Circuit judges who were appointed to relieve the Supreme Court justices of their Circuit riding responsibilities. In the 1802 Act, the justices were required to resume this practice. This caused serious hardship for all the justices, as at least one circuit required an 1,800 mile round-trip, but none more so than Justice Cushing, who had just turned 70 years old.

The new Act also reduced the Washington Terms of the Court from twice per year, in December and June, to once per year, in February. As a result, the Supreme Court didn't meet as a group in 1802 at all; fourteen months elapsed between the final 1801 Term and the February 1803 Term.

Answer 3

No. The doctrine of judicial review is a remnant of English common law that the Americans adopted as part of their judicial system. In his opinion for the US Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison, (1803), John Marshall explicitly claimed that power for the Judicial Branch, but the practice had already been in use for a long time.

The Judiciary Act of 1801 reorganized the federal court system and allowed President John Adams to make last minute appointments of Federalist Party judges before Thomas Jefferson, the new Democratic-Republican President, could take office. Adams was trying to ensure the Federalists maintained control of one branch of government.

The case of Marbury v. Madison arose from the Organic Act of 1801 that allowed President Adams to appoint an unspecified number of justices of the peace to serve the newly incorporated District of Columbia. The Organic Act and Judiciary Act are often confused because both sets of appointees have been referred to as "Midnight Judges" (referring to their last-minute appointment immediately before Adams left office).

Answer 4

yes,that is correct!!!