0
Why should Chief Justice John Marshall have removed himself from the Marbury v. Madison case?
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)
Chief Justice Marshall should have recused himself for conflict-of-interest because he was President Adams' Secretary of State, and responsible for recording and sealing Marbury's appointment, and for arranging delivery of the justice of the peace commissions withheld by the new Jefferson administration, and being contested in Marbury v. Madison.
For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How did John Marshall strengthen the Judicial branch of the US government?
The most common answer to this question is that John Marshall affirmed the right of judicial review over Congressional legislation; however, the Chief Justice contributed much more to the Judicial branch and the federal government, in general.ExplanationJohn Marshall, fourth Chief Justice of the United States (1801-1835), was arguably the most influential person in the history of the judiciary. A brilliant jurist with a genial personality, Marshall used both traits to position the Judiciary as a co-equal branch of the US government and to prevent states from eroding federal power after the Eleventh Amendment was ratified.Marshall first eliminated the Supreme Court tradition of issuing per seriatim opinions, a practice where each justice issued his or her own legal justification for the Court's decision, and replaced it with a single opinion of the Court, usually written by Marshall himself. This allowed the Supreme Court to project unity and assert greater authority. It also allowed Marshall, who excelled at persuading others to his point of view, to devise political strategies that gave his opponents an immediate win that disguised Marshall's true goals. One famous example is that of Marbury v. Madison, (1803), one of the early cases of Marshall's 34-year tenure.Immediately before leaving office, former President Adams appointed Marbury and 41 other members of his Federalist party to justice of the peace positions in the Washington, DC, area. The appointments were based on the lame duck Congress's passage of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801, which was signed into law only a few days before Thomas Jefferson succeeded Adams as President. John Marshall, who served as both Secretary of State and Chief Justice of the United States during Adams' last month in office, was responsible for recording, sealing and arranging delivery of the paperwork. Due to the last-minute nominations and Senate approval, the commissions weren't completed until late the night before Jefferson's inauguration and remained undelivered when the President took office.Jefferson allegedly found the documents in new Secretary of State James Madison's office, and ensured a number of them never reached their intended recipients. Marbury, and three other men whose commissions were withheld, approached the Supreme Court requesting Marshall issue a writ of mandamus (a court order compelling an official to take action) demanding Madison deliver their commissions.Marshall sent Madison a motion to show cause, requiring Madison respond with a legitimate reason why the Supreme Court shouldn't grant Marbury's request. Madison ignored the court order. This alerted Marshall to the strong possibility that ruling in Marbury's favor would result in a conflict between the Executive and Judicial branches that the Court was unlikely to win.Marshall devised a brilliant solution. He ruled that Marbury and the other men were legally entitled to their commissions, and that the federal courts had jurisdiction over the matter. However, Marshall also ruled that the Supreme Court lacked original (trial) jurisdiction over the case because Congress had overstepped its authority Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 when they empowered the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus to government officials. Marshall declared that section of the Act unconstitutional, and told Marbury he would have to refile his case in District Court to receive satisfaction. [Marbury never refiled.]Marbury v. Madison, (1803) represented the first time the US Supreme Court declared an Act of Congress unconstitutional, and clearly affirmed the right of judicial review, the Court's authority to evaluate laws in terms of constitutionality and nullify any they found unconstitutional. Judicial review is the Supreme Court's primary power, and the foundation upon which the Judicial branch rests.Neither Jefferson nor Congress chose to fight Marshall over Marbury because the decision appeared to support their interests.Chief Justice Marshall employed the strategy of granting a narrowly defined win to the more powerful party that had far-reaching implications not obvious on the surface. Marshall's belief in a "living constitution" resulted in frequent exercise of judicial activism supported by intricate legal theories that Thomas Jefferson called "twistifications."Other decisions that strengthened the Court included those in cases like McCulloch v. Maryland, (1819), that prevented the State of Maryland from imposing an unfair tax on the federal Second National Bank, advancing the doctrine of implied powers, invoking the Article I Necessary and Proper Clause, and asserting the Article VI Supremacy Clause, elevating the authority of federal law over state law.The Marshall Court also discouraged states from defying the federal government's authority by holding the Eleventh Amendment was no bar to the federal courts exercising appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions involving federal question jurisdiction; subordinated common law rule(laws based on court decisions) to statutory law; advanced the "complete diversity" principle that made it difficult for corporate shareholders to sue each other in federal courts; restrained the States from violating the terms of charters, and upheld Congress's right to regulate laws affecting interstate business under the Interstate Commerce Clause(Gibbons v. Ogden, (1824)), among other things.Overall, the Marshall Court strengthened both the judiciary and the federal government by resolving issues of state sovereignty, Constitutional supremacy, legal jurisdiction, and separation of powers. In doing so, John Marshall successfully established the Judicial branch's power as a co-equal branch of government, and the Supreme Court as final arbiter of the US Constitution.
What offices did John Marshall hold at the time President Adams first appointed Marbury justice of peace?
John Marshall simultaneously held the office of Chief Justice of the United States (Supreme Court) and Secretary of State under President Adams.Marshall was sworn in as Chief Justice on January 31, 1801, but Adams asked him to remain in office as Secretary of State until the President's administration ended on March 4, 1801.The disputed nominations for justice of the peace were made in the days following Congress' passage of "An Act concerning the District of Columbia" (aka Organic Act of 1801) on February 27, 1801, which authorized then-President Adams to appoint an unspecified number of justices of the peace to service the District of Columbia area. Adams named 42 loyal Federalists to the five-year posts.Marshall, as Secretary of State, was responsible for recording the Senate-confirmed appointments and arranging delivery of the commissions; however, he was unable to complete the task before the morning of March 4, 1801, and assumed the incoming Secretary of State, James Madison, would order their delivery as a matter of course.But Madison was delayed in reaching Washington, and newly inaugurated President Jefferson discovered the undelivered paperwork first. It is assumed he discarded 12 and reassigned 5 of the 42 commissions to members of his own Democratic-Republican party.William Marbury, and three others whose commissions never arrived, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandimus (a court order compelling an official to take action) demanding delivery in the famous case Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803).Marshall played a dual role in the case, because he had been responsible for recording and delivering the commissions under his authority as Secretary of State, then presided over the Marbury v. Madison hearing as Chief Justice.Under ordinary circumstances, a justice would be expect to recuse him- or herself from a case in which he had a conflict of interest; however, this decision has always been left to the justices' discretion. It's unknown whether Marshall would have removed himself under normal circumstances, but in January 1803, two of the five Associate Justices were ill and unable to attend the first Term 1803. If Marshall hadn't participated, the Court would have lacked a quorum and the case been delayed for at least another half-year.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
What was the dilemma faced by the US Supreme Court when deciding the case of Marbury v. Madison?
BackgroundJohn Adams, a Federalist, won the Presidential election in 1796. Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republic, won the Vice-Presidency. The Federalists controlled both the executive and legislative branches at that time. By the next election, in 1800, Federalist policies had angered enough people that Adams lost the election badly.Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, both Democratic-Republicans, received an equal number of electoral votes, so the final decision as to who would assume which role fell to the House of Representatives. Jefferson, championed by a popular Alexander Hamilton, won the Presidency. With both Presidential and Vice-Presidential offices filled by Democratic-Republicans, as well as the majority of seats in both the House and Senate, the new administration portended a radical shift in the government's ideology.Before the new administration could take office, however, the Sixth Congress passed two pieces of legislation in early 1801 that expanded the federal court system. The first, The Judiciary Act of 1801, which passed February 13, 1801, reduced the size of the Supreme Court from 6 members to 5, by attrition, to impede Jefferson's ability to change the composition of the Court (which was entirely Federalist at that time). It also relieved the Justices of their "circuit riding" responsibilities, reorganizing the lower courts into six circuits, and creating positions for 16 new judges.The second piece of legislation, the Organic Act of 1801 (aka "An Act Concerning the District of Columbia"), which passed on February 27, 1801, is more directly relevant to the Marbury v. Madison case. In the Organic Act, Congress formally incorporated land ceded to the federal government by Virginia and Maryland into the District of Columbia, dividing the territory into two "cities": Alexandria, which operated under Virginia law; and Georgetown, which operated under Maryland law. This created a number of lower-level judicial positions (the most commonly referenced number is 42), including "...such number of discreet persons to be justices of the peace, as the President of the United States shall from time to time think expedient."The out-going President, John Adams, in a desperate attempt to bolster Federalist influence, quickly appointed 42 members of his own party to the justice of the peace positions, and 16 Federalist judges to head the Circuit courts created by the new Judiciary Act of 1801 (passed on February 13, 1801). These later became known as the "Midnight Judges," after the fact that they were nominated March 2, and confirmed by the Senate on March 3, 1801, Adams' final day in office.John Marshall, who was Secretary of State under Adams, was responsible for completing the paperwork and delivering the official "commissions" to each of the newly appointed judges, but the administration ended before he could undertake this task. Adams "Midnight Judges" were nominated on March 2, 1801 and confirmed by the Senate on March 3, 1801. Although Marshall worked late into the night completing the registration of appointments and affixing the official Presidential seal, there was no time for Marshall to deliver the paperwork before he and Adams left office on March 4.Marshall, himself, had been newly confirmed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (February 4, 1801), but agreed to remain in office as Secretary of State until the administration changed.When Thomas Jefferson was elected President in 1800, there were no members of his party in the federal judiciary (not surprising because the Democratic-Republican party had formed only recently from a group formerly known as the Anti-federalists). In fact, virtually the entire judiciary, including every member of the Supreme Court, was Federalist, a legacy of both John Adams and George Washington. Jefferson decided to take corrective measures.First, he reduced the number of justice of the peace appointments from 42 to 30, ostensibly as a matter of economy. Of the remaining 30 appointments, Jefferson allowed 25 Federalist appointees to keep their positions, and nominated members of his own party to fill the remaining five slots.William Marbury, whom Adams had appointed justice of the peace for the District of Columbia, was one of the 12 whose commissions were eliminated.After waiting in vain Marbury decided to seek actions from the courts. Searching through statute books, he came across Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the Supreme Court "to issue writs of mandamus." A writ of mandamus is a court order directing an official, such as Secretary of State, to perform a duty about which the official has no discretion, such as delivering a commission.DilemmaThis action put newly appointed chief justice Marshall in the position to make a decision. On the one hand, if he sided with Marbury, then Madison would most likely ignore such a decision. The court would be powerless and its prestige, already low, would suffer a fatal blow.Marshall tested this theory by issuing an order requiring an explanation from Madison as to why Marshall should not issue a writ of mandamus. Madison ignored the order, an insult to the judiciary, which was being treated as a less-than-equal branch of the new government.On the other hand, by refusing to issue the writ, the judges would appear to support President Jefferson and the Republicans.On February 24, 1803, The Supreme Court delivered its opinion. The first part was as expected. Marbury was entitled to his commission and Madison should deliver it to him.Then came the surprise, Marshall stated that Section 13 is contrary to Article III of the constitution, and went on to explained why the court has no jurisdiction to enforce an unconstitutional law. Marshall gained the much more important power to declare laws passed by Congress unconstitutional. It was a brilliant move.Case Citation:Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)For more information, see Related Questions, below.How to assert the power of judicial review in such a way that the other two branches of government would not ignore the Supreme Court's decision
Why might a president appoint more diverse Justices?
the supreme court has become more diverse with the appointments of Thurgood Marshall and Sandra Day o'Commor
Did Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. play any sports?
Chief Justice John Roberts was Co-Captain of his high school football team at La Lumiere, an independent Catholic boarding school in Indiana. He describes himself as a "slow-footed linebacker." Roberts also wrestled during the winter, and was a member of the Athletic Council.To view a picture of Chief Justice John Roberts in his high school football uniform, see Related Links, below.
Which Justices abstained in Marbury v. Madison?
Due to illness, neither Justice William Cushing nor Justice Alfred Moore were available to hear the oral argument for Marbury v. Madison, (1803), so they were unable to participate in deliberations or voting.Today, Chief Justice John Marshall would be expected to recuse (disqualify) himself for conflict of interest.
What was James Madison's role in Marbury v. Madison?
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.Madison played no real role in the case, other than being the nominal defendant. Attorney General Levi Lincoln represented the interests of the United States. Madison didn't testify and wasn't present for any portion of the trial.Case Citation:Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)
What did Jefferson order his secretary of state NOT to deliver?
Trick question. The test answer is probably "William Marbury's commission." The flaw in the question is that Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison, hadn't yet arrived in Washington when a portion of the justice-of-the-peace commissions disappeared.It is unknown who, exactly, disposed of approximately half of the paperwork for the 42 men former President Adams appointed justice-of-the-peace under the Organic Act of 1801, because Chief Justice Marshall deliberately avoided asking that question during the Marbury v. Madison trial.Levi Lincoln, US Attorney General under Thomas Jefferson, temporarily served as Secretary of State before Madison arrived; however, he claimed not to know what had become of the commissions. Thomas Jefferson may have discarded them himself, or may have ordered one of the office clerks to destroy them. The papers were never seen again, and their fate is lost to history.On thing is clear, however: Thomas Jefferson never ordered James Madison not to deliver the commissions; the incident occurred before Madison took office.Case Citation:Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)
Who told James Madison not to deliver commissions to the Midnight Judges?
James Madison hadn't yet taken office when Marbury's and his co-plaintiffs' justice of the peace commissions failed to materialize. Levi Lincoln, the US Attorney General in Jefferson's administration, was temporarily responsible for Madison's job. Lincoln testified he didn't know the ultimate fate of the missing documents, but implied they may have been destroyed.According to a partial trial transcript from February 1803, it appears Jefferson may have disposed of approximately 12 commissions himself (including those for Marbury, et al.), ostensibly because he believed the number excessive. Five of the remaining commissions were allegedly reassigned to members of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican party, and the remainder were delivered to the original parties.It appears James Madison was the nominal (in name only) defendant in the lawsuit because he occupied the office of Secretary of State, the position officially responsible for recording, sealing and delivering the justice of the peace documents. Madison was not personally involved in the case.Case Citation:Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)For more information on Marbury v. Madison, (1803) and the Midnight Judges, see Related Questions, below.
What actors and actresses appeared in Stars on Stars - 2007?
The cast of Stars on Stars - 2007 includes: Jim Brown as himself Kobe Bryant as himself Mark Cuban as himself Marshall Faulk as himself Rudi Johnson as himself Spike Lee as himself Stephon Marbury as Himself - Host Shawne Merriman as himself Randy Moss as himself Michael Rapaport as himself Adam Sandler as himself Saye Yabandeh as Reporter
How did John Marshall strengthen the Judicial branch of the US government?
The most common answer to this question is that John Marshall affirmed the right of judicial review over Congressional legislation; however, the Chief Justice contributed much more to the Judicial branch and the federal government, in general.ExplanationJohn Marshall, fourth Chief Justice of the United States (1801-1835), was arguably the most influential person in the history of the judiciary. A brilliant jurist with a genial personality, Marshall used both traits to position the Judiciary as a co-equal branch of the US government and to prevent states from eroding federal power after the Eleventh Amendment was ratified.Marshall first eliminated the Supreme Court tradition of issuing per seriatim opinions, a practice where each justice issued his or her own legal justification for the Court's decision, and replaced it with a single opinion of the Court, usually written by Marshall himself. This allowed the Supreme Court to project unity and assert greater authority. It also allowed Marshall, who excelled at persuading others to his point of view, to devise political strategies that gave his opponents an immediate win that disguised Marshall's true goals. One famous example is that of Marbury v. Madison, (1803), one of the early cases of Marshall's 34-year tenure.Immediately before leaving office, former President Adams appointed Marbury and 41 other members of his Federalist party to justice of the peace positions in the Washington, DC, area. The appointments were based on the lame duck Congress's passage of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801, which was signed into law only a few days before Thomas Jefferson succeeded Adams as President. John Marshall, who served as both Secretary of State and Chief Justice of the United States during Adams' last month in office, was responsible for recording, sealing and arranging delivery of the paperwork. Due to the last-minute nominations and Senate approval, the commissions weren't completed until late the night before Jefferson's inauguration and remained undelivered when the President took office.Jefferson allegedly found the documents in new Secretary of State James Madison's office, and ensured a number of them never reached their intended recipients. Marbury, and three other men whose commissions were withheld, approached the Supreme Court requesting Marshall issue a writ of mandamus (a court order compelling an official to take action) demanding Madison deliver their commissions.Marshall sent Madison a motion to show cause, requiring Madison respond with a legitimate reason why the Supreme Court shouldn't grant Marbury's request. Madison ignored the court order. This alerted Marshall to the strong possibility that ruling in Marbury's favor would result in a conflict between the Executive and Judicial branches that the Court was unlikely to win.Marshall devised a brilliant solution. He ruled that Marbury and the other men were legally entitled to their commissions, and that the federal courts had jurisdiction over the matter. However, Marshall also ruled that the Supreme Court lacked original (trial) jurisdiction over the case because Congress had overstepped its authority Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 when they empowered the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus to government officials. Marshall declared that section of the Act unconstitutional, and told Marbury he would have to refile his case in District Court to receive satisfaction. [Marbury never refiled.]Marbury v. Madison, (1803) represented the first time the US Supreme Court declared an Act of Congress unconstitutional, and clearly affirmed the right of judicial review, the Court's authority to evaluate laws in terms of constitutionality and nullify any they found unconstitutional. Judicial review is the Supreme Court's primary power, and the foundation upon which the Judicial branch rests.Neither Jefferson nor Congress chose to fight Marshall over Marbury because the decision appeared to support their interests.Chief Justice Marshall employed the strategy of granting a narrowly defined win to the more powerful party that had far-reaching implications not obvious on the surface. Marshall's belief in a "living constitution" resulted in frequent exercise of judicial activism supported by intricate legal theories that Thomas Jefferson called "twistifications."Other decisions that strengthened the Court included those in cases like McCulloch v. Maryland, (1819), that prevented the State of Maryland from imposing an unfair tax on the federal Second National Bank, advancing the doctrine of implied powers, invoking the Article I Necessary and Proper Clause, and asserting the Article VI Supremacy Clause, elevating the authority of federal law over state law.The Marshall Court also discouraged states from defying the federal government's authority by holding the Eleventh Amendment was no bar to the federal courts exercising appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions involving federal question jurisdiction; subordinated common law rule(laws based on court decisions) to statutory law; advanced the "complete diversity" principle that made it difficult for corporate shareholders to sue each other in federal courts; restrained the States from violating the terms of charters, and upheld Congress's right to regulate laws affecting interstate business under the Interstate Commerce Clause(Gibbons v. Ogden, (1824)), among other things.Overall, the Marshall Court strengthened both the judiciary and the federal government by resolving issues of state sovereignty, Constitutional supremacy, legal jurisdiction, and separation of powers. In doing so, John Marshall successfully established the Judicial branch's power as a co-equal branch of government, and the Supreme Court as final arbiter of the US Constitution.
What offices did John Marshall hold at the time President Adams first appointed Marbury justice of peace?
John Marshall simultaneously held the office of Chief Justice of the United States (Supreme Court) and Secretary of State under President Adams.Marshall was sworn in as Chief Justice on January 31, 1801, but Adams asked him to remain in office as Secretary of State until the President's administration ended on March 4, 1801.The disputed nominations for justice of the peace were made in the days following Congress' passage of "An Act concerning the District of Columbia" (aka Organic Act of 1801) on February 27, 1801, which authorized then-President Adams to appoint an unspecified number of justices of the peace to service the District of Columbia area. Adams named 42 loyal Federalists to the five-year posts.Marshall, as Secretary of State, was responsible for recording the Senate-confirmed appointments and arranging delivery of the commissions; however, he was unable to complete the task before the morning of March 4, 1801, and assumed the incoming Secretary of State, James Madison, would order their delivery as a matter of course.But Madison was delayed in reaching Washington, and newly inaugurated President Jefferson discovered the undelivered paperwork first. It is assumed he discarded 12 and reassigned 5 of the 42 commissions to members of his own Democratic-Republican party.William Marbury, and three others whose commissions never arrived, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandimus (a court order compelling an official to take action) demanding delivery in the famous case Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803).Marshall played a dual role in the case, because he had been responsible for recording and delivering the commissions under his authority as Secretary of State, then presided over the Marbury v. Madison hearing as Chief Justice.Under ordinary circumstances, a justice would be expect to recuse him- or herself from a case in which he had a conflict of interest; however, this decision has always been left to the justices' discretion. It's unknown whether Marshall would have removed himself under normal circumstances, but in January 1803, two of the five Associate Justices were ill and unable to attend the first Term 1803. If Marshall hadn't participated, the Court would have lacked a quorum and the case been delayed for at least another half-year.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
How did Chief Justice John Marshall empower the US Supreme Court to become a co-equal branch of government?
The most common answer to this question is that John Marshall affirmed the right of judicial review over Congressional legislation; however, the Chief Justice contributed much more to the Judicial branch and the federal government, in general.ExplanationJohn Marshall, fourth Chief Justice of the United States (1801-1835), was arguably the most influential person in the history of the judiciary. A brilliant jurist with a genial personality, Marshall used both traits to position the Judiciary as a co-equal branch of the US government and to prevent states from eroding federal power after the Eleventh Amendment was ratified.Marshall first eliminated the Supreme Court tradition of issuing per seriatim opinions, a practice where each justice issued his or her own legal justification for the Court's decision, and replaced it with a single opinion of the Court, usually written by Marshall himself. This allowed the Supreme Court to project unity and assert greater authority. It also allowed Marshall, who excelled at persuading others to his point of view, to devise political strategies that gave his opponents an immediate win that disguised Marshall's true goals. One famous example is that of Marbury v. Madison, (1803), one of the early cases of Marshall's 34-year tenure.Immediately before leaving office, former President Adams appointed Marbury and 41 other members of his Federalist party to justice of the peace positions in the Washington, DC, area. The appointments were based on the lame duck Congress's passage of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801, which was signed into law only a few days before Thomas Jefferson succeeded Adams as President. John Marshall, who served as both Secretary of State and Chief Justice of the United States during Adams' last month in office, was responsible for recording, sealing and arranging delivery of the paperwork. Due to the last-minute nominations and Senate approval, the commissions weren't completed until late the night before Jefferson's inauguration and remained undelivered when the President took office.Jefferson allegedly found the documents in new Secretary of State James Madison's office, and ensured a number of them never reached their intended recipients. Marbury, and three other men whose commissions were withheld, approached the Supreme Court requesting Marshall issue a writ of mandamus (a court order compelling an official to take action) demanding Madison deliver their commissions.Marshall sent Madison a motion to show cause, requiring Madison respond with a legitimate reason why the Supreme Court shouldn't grant Marbury's request. Madison ignored the court order. This alerted Marshall to the strong possibility that ruling in Marbury's favor would result in a conflict between the Executive and Judicial branches that the Court was unlikely to win.Marshall devised a brilliant solution. He ruled that Marbury and the other men were legally entitled to their commissions, and that the federal courts had jurisdiction over the matter. However, Marshall also ruled that the Supreme Court lacked original (trial) jurisdiction over the case because Congress had overstepped its authority Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 when they empowered the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus to government officials. Marshall declared that section of the Act unconstitutional, and told Marbury he would have to refile his case in District Court to receive satisfaction. [Marbury never refiled.]Marbury v. Madison, (1803) represented the first time the US Supreme Court declared an Act of Congress unconstitutional, and clearly affirmed the right of judicial review, the Court's authority to evaluate laws in terms of constitutionality and nullify any they found unconstitutional. Judicial review is the Supreme Court's primary power, and the foundation upon which the Judicial branch rests.Neither Jefferson nor Congress chose to fight Marshall over Marbury because the decision appeared to support their interests.Chief Justice Marshall employed the strategy of granting a narrowly defined win to the more powerful party that had far-reaching implications not obvious on the surface. Marshall's belief in a "living constitution" resulted in frequent exercise of judicial activism supported by intricate legal theories that Thomas Jefferson called "twistifications."Other decisions that strengthened the Court included those in cases like McCulloch v. Maryland, (1819), that prevented the State of Maryland from imposing an unfair tax on the federal Second National Bank, advancing the doctrine of implied powers, invoking the Article I Necessary and Proper Clause, and asserting the Article VI Supremacy Clause, elevating the authority of federal law over state law.The Marshall Court also discouraged states from defying the federal government's authority by holding the Eleventh Amendment was no bar to the federal courts exercising appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions involving federal question jurisdiction; subordinated common law rule (laws based on court decisions) to statutory law; advanced the "complete diversity" principle that made it difficult for corporate shareholders to sue each other in federal courts; restrained the States from violating the terms of charters, and upheld Congress's right to regulate laws affecting interstate business under the Interstate Commerce Clause (Gibbons v. Ogden, (1824)), among other things.Overall, the Marshall Court strengthened both the judiciary and the federal government by resolving issues of state sovereignty, Constitutional supremacy, legal jurisdiction, and separation of powers. In doing so, John Marshall successfully established the Judicial branch's power as a co-equal branch of government, and the Supreme Court as final arbiter of the US Constitution.To view this answer published as a list, see Related Questions, below.
Was a compromise reached between Marbury and Madison in the Marbury v Madison case?
Not exactly. A compromise implies two or more parties working together to achieve a solution that partially satisfies, and is acceptable to, each party. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall made a unilateral decision that benefited the US Supreme Court, while simultaneously ensuring neither party to the dispute would challenge the outcome, because each side would be partially vindicated. In that sense, Marshall's decision masqueraded as a compromise without truly being one.The Court held Marbury and the other plaintiffs were entitled to their commissions because they had been properly issued and approved by the sitting President and Senate. However, the second part of the Court's ruling prevented the Supreme Court from ordering Jefferson and Madison deliver the commissions, requiring instead that the plaintiffs refile their case in a lower court. The plaintiffs didn't complain about the decision, but they never refiled the case.The Court also held that Congress had overstepped its constitutional authority by giving the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (orders compelling officials to take a specified action) to government officials. Marshall was emphatic that Article III designated specific classes of case over which the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction, and Congress could not change this fact with a simple act of legislation. Since the Court couldn't uphold a law that was repugnant to the Constitution, it declared Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional and nullified it. The Court's refusal to issue a writ of mandamus relieved the Jefferson administration of any obligation to deliver the commissions (which they had no intention of doing, anyway), and also removed the potential for similar future conflicts between the Judicial and Executive branches.Marshall put Jefferson in the position of either having to object to a decision that supported the President's agenda -- or accept it. Jefferson chose to remain publicly silent on the issue, which appeared to grant the Court tacit approval to overturn acts of Congress as unconstitutional. Although Jefferson strongly opposed the doctrine judicial review and was infuriated by Marshall's plan, he had made mistake of downplaying the importance of Marbury's case, and was unable to refute the Chief Justice's logic without making himself look foolish and creating open conflict between the branches of government and opposing political factions.So, what appears to be a compromise position for the parties involved in the case was more likely a shrewd political strategy that strengthened the Judicial branch and allowed the Supreme Court to play an important role in the development of the nation.The official citation of the case is Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)
What actors and actresses appeared in Supreme Court Oral Arguments - 2000?
The cast of Supreme Court Oral Arguments - 2000 includes: Samuel Alito as Himself - Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as Herself - Justice David Boies as Himself - Attorney for Respondent Walter Dellinger as Himself - Attorney for Petitioners Alan Gura as Himself - Attorney for Respondent Ted Olson as himself John Paul Stevens as Himself - Justice William Rehnquist as Himself - Chief Justice of the United States Antonin Scalia as Himself - Justice
What actors and actresses appeared in 25 Strong - 2005?
The cast of 25 Strong - 2005 includes: Rafer Alston as himself Kenny Charles as himself Stephon Marbury as himself Karl Saunders as himself Jamaal Tinsley as himself
Who did James Madison model himself after in his political life?
it was Dolley Madison
