What amendment was applied in marbury v Madison?

Answer 1

Marbury v. Madison, (1803) addressed the fundamental powers and interaction between different branches of government, as enumerated and outlined in the original Articles of the Constitution; the case didn't touch upon any of the Amendments. The primary focus was on Article II, Sections 2 and 3; Article III, Section 2; and Article VI, Supremacy Clause.

Explanation

In order to resolve the dilemma in Marbury v. Madison,Chief Justice Marshall had to answer three questions related to federal and constitutional law.

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

The first consideration was whether President Adams had properly appointed Marbury according to the powers granted to him under Article II, Section 2, which states:

"The President shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not otherwise provided for."

Article II, Section 3 is also relevant:

"He shall commission all the officers of the United States."

Congress dictated the exact manner in which commissions were to be completed, and Marshall, when acting as Secretary of State, complied with their instructions:

"...to make out and record, and affix the said seal to all civil commissions to officers of the United States to be appointed by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate, or by the President alone; provided that the said seal shall not be affixed to any commission before the same shall have been signed by the President of the United States."

The answer to the first question was yes, Marbury was entitled to his commission because the appointment had been properly executed under Article II.

The second question addressed whether there was a legal remedy available to resolve the dispute.

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

Without specifying particular constitutional passages, Marshall concluded that Marbury's issues could be addressed by the federal courts (rather than politically, by the legislature) because the appointment was made with the "advice and consent" of the Senate, and could not be rescinded by the President alone.

The final question asked whether the US Supreme Court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus (an order compelling an official to take action) against James Madison, the Secretary of State.

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

The conclusion to this question was no, because Marshall concluded Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution did not confer original (first, or trial) jurisdiction to the Supreme Court over federal officials.

"The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction."

Marshall concluded Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, authorizing the Court to issue writs of mandamus to US government officials conflicted with the Framers' intent, and declared that portion of the Act unconstitutional and void. This exercise of "judicial review" is not explicitly defined in the Constitution, but is considered an implied power under Article III and as elucidated in the Federalist Papers. Marshall reasoned:

"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."

Chief Justice Marshall also indirectly invoked the Article VI Supremacy Clause by admonishing Congress that the Constitution is superior to acts of legislation.

"If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply."

Case Citation:

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 2

Amendment #1 was created for the basic rightes of people. the people included were Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and Richard Henry Lee.

Answer 3

It does not state explicitly in the Constitution that there is a separation of powers, but that idea is what Marbury vs Madison hinged on.

Answer 4

amendment 4