What did James Madison argue in Marbury v. Madison?

Answer 1

John Adams lost his bid for reelection to Thomas Jefferson in the 1800 Presidential election. Adams was a member of the Federalist party, while Jefferson was a member of the Democratic-Republican party that considered themselves anti-Federalist in their thinking.

The Federalists were losing power in the US government, so President Adams attempted to fill up the Judicial branch with members of his own party right before leaving office. One group of 42 men were appointed as justices of the peace for the newly incorporated Washington, DC, territory. Because the appointments occurred during the last two days of Adams' term of office, the paperwork wasn't completed in time to allow the commissions to be delivered to the justices of the peace so they could start work. John Marshall, who was both Secretary of State and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court during the last month of Adams' administration, assumed James Madison, the new Secretary of State, would have the paperwork delivered.

The new President, Thomas Jefferson, found the commissions on a desk in the Secretary of State's office before Madison arrived in town. Jefferson thought Adams appointed too many people, and also wanted to balance the appointments by replacing some with members of his own party. Approximately seventeen of the original commissions were discarded in the process.

William Marbury was one of the men who never received his commission. He filed suit with the US Supreme Court, asking that a writ of mandamus (a court order demanding an official take a specific legal action) be issued to James Madison, because the Secretary of State was responsible for delivering the paperwork.

Chief Justice John Marshall sent an order asking Madison to show cause why the Court shouldn't issue the writ, but Madison ignored Marshall. This created a dilemma, because Madison's behavior indicated he wouldn't cooperate with the Supreme Court, which could have weakened the Judicial branch's role in government.

When the case finally came to trial in 1803, Marshall came up with a brilliant strategy. The opinion of the Court stated that Marbury was entitled to his commission, but that the Supreme Court didn't have original jurisdiction (the right to hear a case for the first time) over Marbury's suit because the Constitution didn't give the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus against government officials. Marshall decided Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because Congress gave the Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus, which wasn't part of the power assigned to the Court under original jurisdiction in Article III of the Constitution. This would have had the effect of changing the Constitution through simple legislation, which is prohibited.

Marshall said the Supreme Court didn't have authority to force Madison to deliver Marbury's papers, and that Marbury would have to refile his case in a lower court (which never happened).

The decision in Marbury v. Madison is historic because this was the first time the Supreme Court declared an Act of Congress unconstitutional. In doing so, Marshall affirmed the Court's right of judicial review, the power to evaluate laws that are part of a case under consideration to determine whether the law is constitutional. This ruling strengthened the Judicial branch of government, and made obvious that the power of judicial review is a check on the actions of Congress (and the President).

Case Citiation:

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review.

Marbury v. Madison is the landmark case in United States law

The significance of Marbury v. Madison, (1803), is that it affirmed the Judicial Branch's (specifically the Supreme Court's) right of judicial review, setting a precedent for future cases, strengthening the Supreme Court, and establishing the Judicial Branch as a co-equal part of government.

Judicial review is the power of the Court to evaluate challenged legislation to determine its constitutionality, and to nullify any laws they find unconstitutional.

Answer

Marbury v. Madison is probably the most important case as far as defining the powers of the judicial branch. This is the case where the Supreme Court created the concept of "judicial review". This means that in a proper lawsuit which alleges that a particular law or Presidential action conflicts with the provisions of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power to review that law or action and declare it to be unconstitutional and and of no force and effect.

Thus, the judiciary can nullify a law if it finds it unconstitutional. At that time, some people felt that the Supreme Court had no power to nullify an action by Congress or the President. Not one word of the Constitution specifically gives the Judiciary this power. Many felt this would make the judicial branch more powerful than the other branches. Never the less, it has always been the function of the judiciary to interpret laws and decide if one conflicted with another.

Deciding whether laws conflict with the Constitution is no different. This power of judicial review is a check that the judicial branch has on the other branches, even though the Constitution did not give it to the judicial branch in so many words. The later case of Fletcher v. Peck confirmed that judicial review extended to state laws as well.

Case Citation:

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)

Jefferson ordered Madison to not allow the finishing process to take place confirming Marbury as a judge.

Answer 2

James Madison never answered the preliminary inquiry Chief Justice Marshall sent asking why Marshall should not issue a writ of mandamus (compelling Madison to provide Marbury's commission), nor did he testify at trial. In fact, Madison was absolutely silent on the subject.

Attorney General Levi Lincoln and Madison's chief clerk, Jacob Wagner, were called to respond on behalf of the Jefferson cabinet.

Jacob Wagner testified to having no record of the missing commissions in his log book (although it would have been Wagner's responsibility to make note of the appointments), and never having seen them. This was probably untrue.

After taking a day to decide whether he was willing to testify, Levi Lincoln decided he would answer all but one question: What had become of the commissions.

According to the Reporter of Decisions, Cranch, the court record indicates the following:

"Mr. Lincoln, attorney general, having been summoned, and now called, objected to answering. He requested that the questions might be put in writing, and that he might afterwards have time to determine whether he would answer. On the one hand he respected the jurisdiction of this court, and on the other he felt himself bound to maintain the rights of the executive. He was acting as secretary of state at the time when this transaction happened. He was of opinion, and his opinion was supported by that of others whom he highly respected, that he was not bound, and ought not to answer, as to any facts which came officially to his knowledge while acting as secretary of state.

"The questions being written were then read and handed to him. He repeated the ideas he had before suggested, and said his objections were of two kinds.

"1st. He did not think himself bound to disclose his official transactions while acting as secretary of state; and

"2d. He ought not to be compelled to answer any thing which might tend to criminate himself.

"Mr. Lincoln thought it was going a great way to say that every secretary of state should at all times be liable to be called upon to appear as a witness in a court of justice, and testify to facts which came to his knowledge officially. He felt himself delicately situated between his duty to this court, and the duty he conceived he owed to an executive department; and hoped the court would give him time to consider of the subject.

"The court said, that if Mr. Lincoln wished time to consider what answers he should make, they would give him time; but they had no doubt he ought to answer. There was nothing confidential required to be disclosed. If there had been he was not obliged to answer it; and if he thought that any thing was communicated to him in confidence he was not bound to disclose it; nor was he obliged to state any thing which would criminate himself; but that the fact whether such commissions had been in the office or not, could not be a confidential fact; it is a fact which all the world have a right to know. If he thought any of the questions improper, he might state his objections.

"Mr. Lincoln then prayed time till the next day to consider of his answers under this opinion of the court.

"The court granted it and postponed further consideration of the cause till the next day.

"At the opening of the court on the next morning, Mr. Lincoln said he had no objection to answering the questions proposed, excepting the last which he did not think himself obliged to answer fully. The question was, what had been done with the commissions. He had no hesitation in saying that he did not know that they ever came to the possession of Mr. Madison [Jefferson's Secretary of State], nor did he know that they were in the office when Mr. Madison took possession of it. He prayed the opinion of the court whether he was obliged to disclose what had been done with the commissions."

Madison's official position, then, was that he didn't have possession of the commissions and didn't know what had become of them (they were most likely destroyed); therefore, they couldn't (or wouldn't) be delivered, and were void.

Thomas Jefferson knew the judiciary was already under the near-exclusive control of the Federalist party, and was determined to rectify the situation. Part of the solution involved withholding commissions from some of the justices of the peace Adams appointed under the Organic Act of 1801; another part was repealing the Judiciary Act of 1801, which had increased the number of federal court judges by 16, depriving them of their jobs.

Case Citation:

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)

Answer 3

his argument was that he belived that this would balance the 3 branches government

Answer 4

C.) in favor of a republican form of government.