0
because your mom
Wiki User
∙ 10y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Who won Marbury v. Madison?
John Marshall ruled that Marbury was entitled to his commission, but stated the US Supreme Court didn't have original jurisdiction over the case (could not hear the case as a trial court). Both sides won a partial victory; however, Marbury didn't pursue the case in the lower courts as Marshall stipulated, and didn't receive the commission he'd been promised, so Madison (Jefferson) won by default.William Marbury was a wealthy businessman and a member of the Federalist Party, who didn't really need or care about the commission, as his failure to follow-up attests. Marbury v. Madison represented an attempt on the Federalists' part to embarrass the new Democratic-Republic President, Thomas Jefferson. John Marshall's brilliant solution defused the situation and discouraged his fellow Federalists from using the Supreme Court as a means of attacking Jefferson.The decision also had the effect of affirming the Court's right of judicial review, which angered Jefferson, and which he never acknowledged as valid. Maybe the most accurate response is that the Supreme Court won.Case Citation:Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)
Thomas Jefferson referred to the Republican victory as the of 1800?
Thomas Jefferson referred to the Republican victory as the __ of 1800
How could a writ of mandamus force Madison to comply with the order in the case of Marbury v. Madison?
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)A writ of mandamus is a court order compelling an official to take action - or refrain from taking action - on something within his or her scope of responsibility. In Marbury v. Madison, (1803), William Marbury sought a judgment from the Supreme Court forcing the Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver a justice of the peace commission former President Adams had awarded Marbury immediately leaving office. Delivery was to be arranged by the Secretary of State's office, which, ironically, had been under (Chief Justice) John Marshall's control at the time the commission was signed. Due to time constraints, the task fell to the incoming Jefferson administration, which refused to execute Adams' orders.One of the problems Chief Justice Marshall faced in handling the Marbury case was the potential that Madison would refuse to comply with a writ of mandamus, leaving the Court powerless to enforce its order. This was a reasonable concern, as Marshall had already issued a preliminary request for Madison to show cause why the Court should not issue a writ of mandamus (a standard procedure), which Madison ignored.If the Court was unable to move the Secretary of State, the Judicial branch would be seen as weaker than either the Executive and Legislative branches, which could render it ineffectual.Marshall knew Marbury represented a power struggle between Adams' Federalist party, which was deeply entrenched in the judiciary but losing political power in other parts of government, and Jefferson's Democratic-Republican party, which had just assumed control of the White House and Congress.William Marbury was a wealthy businessman, a banker, who had no real need (or probably desire) to hold the position for which he sued. The Federalists may have expected Marshall, who was also a Federalist, to side with them and strengthen the party's grip on the judiciary. Jefferson may have expected Marshall to issue an order he couldn't enforce, which would have undermined the Federalist party.Marshall was less concerned with partisan politics than with ensuring the Supreme Court operated as a powerful and independent branch of government. The Chief Justice negotiated a middle course that gave each side a partial victory while discouraging both parties from using the Court as a pawn.In the Opinion of the Court, Marbury was entitled to his commission because it had been properly approved, signed and sealed by President Adams; however, the Court lacked jurisdiction to order Madison deliver the commission. The case would have to be addressed in a lower court first, then appealed if necessary (Marbury never pursued this step).According to Marshall, Congress had overstepped its constitutional authority in the Judiciary Act of 1789 by granting the Supreme Court power to issue all writs of mandamus, in contradiction to the specific areas of original jurisdiction granted in Article III. The decision declared Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional and rendered it null and void.Marbury v. Madison, (1803), is often cited as the landmark case that affirmed the Supreme Court's right of judicial review.For more information on Marbury v. Madison, see Related Links, below.
Did Marbury win because Chief Justice John Marshall was on his side?
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)No. First, Marbury didn't really win the case. Chief Justice Marshall delivered a long lecture to President Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans, but the actual decision was that the Supreme Court didn't have jurisdiction (authority) to hear the case. This gave each side a partial victory.Marbury was vindicated because John Marshall stated he was entitled to the justice of the peace position to which John Adams appointed him, but that Marbury would have to refile his grievance in a lower court. Madison and Jefferson also had a partial victory, because they weren't ordered to deliver Marbury's commission, a decision that could have resulted in an open power struggle between the Executive and Judicial branches, and between the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties.Marshall wisely concluded that the Judicial branch would be weakened if Madison ignored a ruling against him. Instead, Marshall used the rule of law to declare Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. In Section 13, Congress had bestowed on the US Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus (a court order compelling an official to take a legal action) against federal government officials under original jurisdiction (as a trial court). Marshall argued Congress had improperly attempted to change the Constitution and nullified that part of the Act. This clearly affirmed the Supreme Court's role as interpreter of the Constitution, and established the Chief Justice's intention to place a check on the power of Congress through judicial review (of laws).Marbury never refiled his case in the lower court, demonstrating the conflict was political and had served its purpose. The Judicial branch, and the Supreme Court as head of the judicial branch, were the real winners in the case.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Did john marshall deliver a series of the most momentous decisions in American judicial history?
Yes. "During Jefferson's term of office, the power of the Supreme Court was increased. William Marbury, one of the judges appointed by Adams before he left office, had not been granted his commission of office prior to the change of administration. Marbury asked the Supreme Court to compel Secretary of State James Madison to grant him his commission. Chief Justice John Marshall recognized that if he and the justices approved Marbury's request, Madison might not follow the Court's orders, thus weakening the people's respect for the judiciary. If the justices rejected Marbury's request, however, the Republicans would have an apparent victory. Marshall managed to avoid both political pitfalls. In his decision, he stated that Marbury deserved the commission but that the Court was powerless to make the Secretary of State deliver it because of a conflict between the Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789. Marshall's decision in Marbury v. Madison was a blow to the Republicans, but it strengthened the federal judiciary by establishing the principle that the Supreme Court could declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. This ruling was the first of many important decisions made by John Marshall during his thirty-five years as Chief Justice." (Switched on Schoolhouse: History Unit 3. The Revolution of 1800)
Could Congress give the US Supreme Court the power to issue an order granting Marbury his commission?
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)No. Congress is not authorized to change the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction without formally amending the Constitution, which requires a two-thirds affirmative vote from both the Senate and House of Representatives, followed by ratification by three-quarters of the states.However . . .The portion of Article III Marshall used in support of his decision, "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction," was vague enough to invite the opposite interpretation, if Marshall had considered it in the Court's best interest.Marshall could have decided US government officials fell within the Court's jurisdiction under "other public ministers and consuls," but chose to read the clause in the most literal sense possible. By declaring Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, asserting the right of judicial review, Marshall strengthened the position of the Judicial Branch without inviting opposition from Jefferson.The Court's decision was most likely a brilliant political strategy disguised as a true constitutional interpretation.Marshall already suspected Secretary of States James Madison would ignore a court order forcing delivery of Marbury, et al.'s commissions. If the order was refused, the Judicial Branch would be weakened and become subordinate to the other two branches of government. Marshall probably knew Jefferson wouldn't fight the Court's decision to declare part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional (although Jefferson openly opposed judicial review) if doing so would force him to contradict Marshall's clear reasoning, or capitulate to the Federalist party.The opinion in Marbury v. Madison delivered a clear victory for the Supreme Court, and a partial victory for both Jefferson and Marbury, thus ensuring the decision would be accepted, if begrudgingly.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
How did Marshall rule in marbury vs. Madison?
In Marbury v. Madison, (1803), The Court held that William Marbury and his co-plaintiffs had a right to their commissions, but that the Supreme Court did not have authority to issue a writ of mandamus under original (trial) jurisdiction compelling Secretary of State Madison to deliver the necessary paperwork. Marbury, et al., must first file their case in a lower court.This decision was based on the answer to three legal questions: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.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.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.Chief Justice Marshall held that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional because Congress attempted to grant the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus against US government officials, an authority not specifically relegated to the court in Article III of the constitution.Marshall also declared the Judicial Branch had authority to check the power of the Executive and Legislative branches by determining whether laws or actions conform with constitutional principles."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."-Chief Justice John MarshallCase Citation:Marbury v. Madison, 137 US 5 (1803)
Who declared victory during the end of the battle of Gettysburg?
Thomas Jefferson
Is there a Danica Wooten who used to go to Victory Baptist?
My name is Dennis Wooten. I was saved at Victory Baptist Church in Madison, AL in 1967.
Thomas Jefferson proclaimed the Revolution of 1800 the victory of?
common people over wealthy interests
The only major Northern victory during the early stages of the war came during the Battle of?
George Jefferson
The only major Northern victory during the early stages of the war came during the Battle of .?
George Jefferson
