Why did the Supreme Court make the decision on Marbury v. Madison?

Answer 1

(If you don't know what Marbury v. Madison was, just search for a brief somewhere)

In a nutshell, their reasoning was that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional.

William Marbury, a recently appointed judge by President John Adams before Thomas Jefferson became president, took Secretary of State James Madison to supreme court because Madison had been ordered by the new President Jefferson to not finalize paperwork for Marbury becoming judge.

Marbury asked the Supreme Court Justices to issue a writ of mandamus (basically an absolute order meant to remedy a situation) to make Madison finish the paperwork. This type of order was enabled from the Judiciary Act of 1789. It was up to the Supreme court now.

They were in a difficult situation of judicial restraint: on one hand they thought they should issue the writ of mandamus because they didn't want their decision to look like they were intimidated by the executive branch. But on the other hand, if they did, the executive branch would probably just ignore it.

So Chief Justice John Marshall did some thinking. The court came to the decision that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because it gave more direct power to the Supreme Court than the constitution did. This decision was very clever because while it got the Judiciary branch out of that situation, it also gave them a different type of power; the ability to use the precedent from this case to rule something unconstitutional.

Answer 2

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)

The rulings are related to the three questions posed to the Court:

1. Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?

   The Court determined that Marbury had a right to his commission, per An Act Concerning the District of Columbia that Congress passed in 1801, as well as Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, which granted the President the right to make judicial nominations. Marbury's nomination had already been approved by the Senate, then signed an sealed by the former President, making it official.

2. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?

   Because the answer to the first question was that Marbury was properly appointed as a justice of the peace, his legal rights had been violated when Madison withheld the paperwork necessary to assume office.

   Further, the laws of the United States afforded Marbury a remedy to this violation.

3. If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court?

   The Supreme Court determined it did not have original jurisdiction over the case, but appellate, and therefore could not issue a writ of mandamus. Marbury had to initiate legal action against Madison in the lower federal courts before the Supreme Court could review his case.

   This decision was based on the Court's determination that the Judiciary Act of 1789, in which Congress delegated to the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over cases involving the federal government, was partially unconstitutional because it granted the Court powers not specified by the Constitution.

   Part 3 of the Marbury decision established the high court's right of judicial review over legislation passed by Congress and the President, as well as the power to overturn laws deemed to be unconstitutional.

Marshall considered these questions for ten days before arriving at a solution that would give partial victories to both parties, while increasing the influence of the Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision, the Court declared Marbury was legally entitled to his commission, but that the court lacked jurisdictional authority to issue the mandamus. He also delivered a scathing criticism of Congress designed to assert the Court's authority over questions of constitutional law.

Marshall wrote:

"Mr. Marbury . . . since his commission was signed by the president, and sealed by the secretary of state, was appointed. . . . To withhold the commission, therefore, is an act deemed by the court not warranted by law, but violative of a vested legal right."

Further, Marshall asserted, Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because Congress had vested in the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over issues not specifically ordained by the Constitution (the validity of this argument is debatable, but Jefferson had no motive to contest Marshall's reasoning, since the verdict supported his decision).

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other the courts must decide on the operation of each. . . .

"So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. . . . "

Congress could not give the Supreme Court power to issue an order forcing Madison to act because the Constitution did not specifically afford the Court original jurisdiction in the matter; rather, they could serve only as an appellate court on the issue and could not initiate an action.

This decision set two important precedents:

1. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Constitution gave the Court the authority of judicial review - that is, it empowered the Court to review acts of the Legislative, and, by extension, Executive, branches to evaluate whether legislation was constitutional. If found unconstitutional, the Court could overrule the law.

   Although the Ellsworth Court had established the supremacy of the US Constitution over state laws in Ware v. Hylton,(1796), Marbury represented the first time the Supreme Court declared an act of the US Congress unconstitutional.

2. By refusing to assume a role constitutionally assigned to Congress or a lower court, Marshall rejected the establishment of common law (laws determined by judicial precedent, or case law, rather than by legislation). This helped differentiate the new Republic from Colonial America, which had long relied on the English principles of common law.

Answer 3

Marbury v. Madison, (1803) is considered judicial review because the Court decided Congress overstepped its constitutional authority by giving the Supreme Court authority to issue writs of mandamus (court orders commanding an official to take action) to US government officials in Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789.

According to Chief Justice Marshall, Article III of the Constitution specifically listed what was included under the Court's original jurisdiction, and issuing writs to government officials wasn't among the items mentioned. If the action wasn't explicitly allowed by the Constitution, Marshall reasoned, Section 13 of the Judiciary Act and the Constitution were in conflict with one another.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. All laws must comply with the principles outline in that document. If there is a conflict, then either the Constitution was wrong or the Act of Congress was unconstitutional. The Constitution (which was ratified by Congress and the States) declares itself the Supreme Law, so the unconstitutional legislation had to be nullified.

That is the essence of judicial review: The court interprets the meaning of a law and compares it with the rules of the Constitution. If the law conflicts with the Constitution, the law cannot be enforced.

Case Citation:

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)

Answer 4

It allowed the Judicial Branch to check the actions of the Legislative Branch by affirming the Supreme Court's power of judicial review.

Answer 5

they loved each other very much.