0
Answer
Only Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was declared unconstitutional, because Congress attempted to expand the Supreme Court's authority to include Writs of Mandamus (court orders compelling officials or agencies to take a specific action under their scope of responsibility) for US government officials under the Court's original jurisdiction (as the first court).
Chief Justice Marshall reasoned that the Constitution specifically listed the types of cases the Supreme Court is allowed to hear under original jurisdiction in Article III, Section 2. Section 13 of the Judiciary Act improperly added an item to the list. Marshall stated Congress overstepped its authority by changing the Supreme Court's jurisdiction without following proper constitutional amendment procedures, making that part of the law unconstitutional.
Explanation
In the case of Marbury v. Madison, (1803), the Marshall Court declared a portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional.
The Judiciary Act of 1789, which extended to the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over issuing writs of mandamus (a court order requiring an official to take - or refrain from taking - an action within his or her scope of authority). The Court declared that portion of the Act, Section 13, unconstitutional because the Constitution did not specify issuing writs of mandamus as one of the Supreme Court's areas of original jurisdiction. According to Marshall, Congress had overreached its authority by attempting to make the Court responsible for all writs of mandamus.
Chief Justice Marshall determined that reviewing acts of the Legislative and Executive branches was within the Court's appellate jurisdiction, and that declaring laws unconstitutional and overturning legislation was within the scope of its authority.
As a result of this reasoning, the Court declared it did not have the authority to compel James Madison to deliver Marbury's commission, allowing him to take office as justice of the peace of the District of Columbia.
Some Constitutional scholars argue that Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution should be interpreted to include issuing writs of mandamus to government officials, based on this sentence:
"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."
The argument, in this case, is that James Madison should be considered a "public minister."
Marshall's decision may have been based as much in politics as in the letter of law. By declaring Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, he avoided a direct confrontation with President Jefferson that might have weakened the power of the Judicial branch.
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
The Supreme Court first found an act of Congress unconstitutional in which case?
The Supreme Court of the United States found that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. It was the first case declared to be so and was known as Marbury vs. Madison.
What act of Congress established a federal court system?
The Judiciary Act of 1789
What 1789 law organized the federal court system?
The Judiciary Act of 1789For more information, see Related Questions, below.
What is origin of the federal court system?
The Supreme Court of the United States (aka US Supreme Court), which was established by the first Act (Judiciary Act of 1789) of the First Congress on September 24, 1789.
When did Chief Justice John Marshall declare part of a judiciary act unconstitutional?
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)In the case of Marbury v. Madison, (1803), the Marshall Court declared a portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional.The Judiciary Act of 1789, which extended to the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over issuing writs of mandamus (a court order requiring an official to take - or refrain from taking - an action within his or her scope of authority). The Court declared that portion of the Act, Section 13, unconstitutional because the Constitution did not specify issuing writs of mandamus as one of the Supreme Court's areas of original jurisdiction. According to Marshall, Congress had overreached its authority by attempting to make the Court responsible for all writs of mandamus.Chief Justice Marshall determined that reviewing acts of the Legislative and Executive branches was within the Court's appellate jurisdiction, and that declaring laws unconstitutional and overturning legislation was within the scope of its authority.As a result of this reasoning, the Court declared it did not have the authority to compel James Madison to deliver Marbury's commission, allowing him to take office as justice of the peace of the District of Columbia.Some Constitutional scholars argue that Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution should be interpreted to include issuing writs of mandamus to government officials, based on this sentence:"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."The argument, in this case, is that James Madison should be considered a "public minister."Marshall's decision may have been based as much in politics as in the letter of law. By declaring Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, he avoided a direct confrontation with President Jefferson that might have weakened the power of the Judicial branch.
What did Chief Justice John Marshall declare unconstitutional?
Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789
What role did John Marshall play during the judicial acts?
He helped declare the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional.
When was the judiciary act of 1789 created?
1789
How did Marshall rule in marbury v. Madison?
The Supreme Court first asserted the power of judicial review by declaring an act of Congress, the Judiciary Act of 1789, unconstitutional.
How did marshall rule marbury v Madison?
The Supreme Court first asserted the power of judicial review by declaring an act of Congress, the Judiciary Act of 1789, unconstitutional.
Was the Judiciary Act of 1789 repealed?
No. Chief Justice Marshall declared Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, but that was just a small portion of the Act. The Judiciary Act of 1789 was neither revised nor repealed. The Judiciary Act of 1801, passed during the final days of President Adams' administration, was repealed after Thomas Jefferson and a new Congress took office. Congress repealed the Act because it expanded the Federal court system in a way that allowed President Adams to ensure Federalist Party members dominated the Judicial Branch of Government. When the Judiciary Act of 1801 was repealed, the Judiciary Act of 1789 was temporarily reinstated. For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Who was involved in the judiciary act of 1789?
Me
The Supreme Court first found an act of Congress unconstitutional in which case?
The Supreme Court of the United States found that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. It was the first case declared to be so and was known as Marbury vs. Madison.
Who created the office of attorney general?
In 1789 with one of the first Judiciary Enactments of Congress.
In 1789 what established the system of lower courts?
Congress established the federal court system in the Judiciary Act of 1789. The US Supreme Court later declared Section 13 of the Act unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison, (1803).
The federal judiciary was given form and substance by?
The Judiciary Act of 1789.
In 1789 did congress pass the administration of justice act?
The Judiciary Act was passed in 1789 by congress.
