0
In Marbury v. Madison who was Chief Justice John Marshall likely to agree with why?
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
The Federalists apparently hoped Marshall would side with Marbury, because Marshall, a Federalist, was the Secretary of State under John Adams, and was responsible for delivering Marbury's commission, which was withheld after the change of administration.
In reading the opinion, it appears the Court's decision was based on an ethical and intellectual assessment of law and the Constitution, and did not show personal bias toward the Plaintiff (or against the Defendant).
Marshall and Jefferson were distant cousins, and had never gotten along. Historians report the Court's decision angered Jefferson, which probably didn't bother Marshall, but was unlikely to have significantly influenced the ruling (although Marshall did take the Executive branch to task in his written opinion).
Case Citation:
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Wiki User
∙ 13y agoThe rulings in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803) are related to the three questions posed to the Court:
- 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.
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.
- 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.
Case Citation:
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why didn't Thurgood Marshall participate in the case Clay v US?
The official reason was that Marshall had been Solicitor General when the case began. However it was also likely because there was a great deal of animosity between Marshall and the Nation of Islam. Marshall once called the Nation "a bunch of thugs organized in prisons and jails." The Nation beleived Marshall to be part of the white establishment.
Did James marshall go to school?
Marshall's parents taught him to read and write, and he studied independently until the 1767 (age 12), when he received private tutoring from a Scottish minister who lived with the family for about a year.In 1772 (age 17), Marshall attended Reverend Archibald Campbell's academy, and read Blackstone's Commentaries (considered the definitive authority on law at that time) at home.In 1780 (age 25) he attended six weeks of lectures at William & Mary College, and read law under Chancellor George Wythe. Some sources claim he also took a philosophy class from James Madison, who was then President of William & Mary, but Marshall, who carefully documented the content of his other classes, left no evidence supporting this claim.William & Mary only enrolled about 30 students during the time Marshall attended, and temporarily closed the following year due to the war. Marshall joined the military after his stint in college, and there is no record of further formal education.Most likely, Marshall read voraciously and may have had access to Lord Fairfax's private library, as did his friend George Washington.
Who wrote Virginia plan?
Edmund Randolph proposed it, but James Madison wrote most of it.James Madison drafted the Virginia plan of representation at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Virginia governor Edmund Randolph is the person who officially placed the proposal to the convention.Edmund randolphI guess that depends on what you mean by proposed. The plan was drafted by delegate James Madison, as part of a committee, but he was likely the main impetus. However, delegate Edmund Randolph that officially put it before the convention. It was presented on May 29, 1787.
Which historical event most likely had the biggest effect on the writings of WEB DuBois?
which historical event most likely had the biggest effect on the writings of W.E.B. DuBois
What is the most likely reason Columbus described the Arawak as weak and frightened?
The most likely reason he described them that way was to make it appear that they would be easy to defeat.
Who was the Federalist Chief Justice of the United States?
The first five Chief Justices of the United States were members of the Federalist party:John JayJohn RutledgeOliver EllsworthJohn MarshallRoger B. TaneyWhen people mention the "Federalist Chief Justice," they are most likely referring to John Marshall, because Marshall's ties to the Federalist party were relevant to the case Marbury v. Madison, (1803).Chief Justice John Marshall was Secretary of State under Federalist President John Adams. When Adams lost the 1800 Presidential election to Democratic-Republican candidate Thomas Jefferson, he quickly nominated Marshall as Chief Justice of the United States, effective when the new administration took office.Adams also exploited the Judiciary Act of 1801, which created 58 new federal judgeships, by appointing only members of his own party to fill those positions. Marshall's appointment, combined with the last-minute Presidential action, inadvertently gave Thomas Jefferson an opportunity to thwart Adams' plan by revoking some of his commissions. This ultimately resulted in the famous Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison, (1803).For more information about Marbury v. Madison, see Related Links, below.
Why did Marbury take his case to the chief justice?
The US Supreme Court didn't rule against Marbury; the opinion of the Court clearly stated Marbury and his fellow plaintiffs were entitled to their commissions. The only reason they didn't receive them via a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court was that the Court also determined it lacked authority to issue the order under its original (trial) jurisdiction. The reasoning was that Congress had attempted to expand the Supreme Court's constitutional authority into an area not explicitly permitted in Article III.Chief Justice Marshall told Marbury he would have to first refile his case in a lower court then, if necessary, bring it to the Supreme Court on appeal.There were two unspoken issues underlying the court's opinion. The first was Marshall had to maneuver around the likelihood that Jefferson/Madison would never agree to reissue the discarded commissions, and the Supreme Court lacked any authority to enforce such an order.The second issue was that Jefferson's stubbornness afforded Marshall an opportunity to give the new President the decision he wanted while also delivering an embarrassing public lecture. It also allowed Marshall to find grounds for overturning a section of a Congressional Act as unconstitutional, supplying the Court both with the reason for not issuing the order and the opportunity to formally establish their right of judicial review.Case Citation:Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)
When did the Marbury v Madison election start?
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)William Marbury took his case directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. Chief Justice Marshall ruled that the Supreme Court only had appellate jurisdiction over the case, and that Marbury would have to first file his complaint in a District Court, then appeal, if necessary.Marbury never appealed his case, most likely because the purpose of filing suit with the Supreme Court was to embarrass President Jefferson, not to secure his justice of the peace commission.For more information, 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)
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.
Who is Alex Marshall?
There is most likely more than one Alex Marshall, but there is an Alex Marshall that plays piano and rhythm guitar in the band The Cab.
Is there the girls shop justice in UK?
there isn't any 'shop justice' in the UK that i know of but there is a likely change that there isn't a 'shop justice' in the UK
When is the release date for Waking Madison?
There is no official release date for Waking Madison, until they find a distributor. Most likely before 2011.
Why did the Marbury v Madison trial take place?
In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress had assigned the US Supreme Court responsibility for petitions of writs of mandamus (a judial order compelling an official to take, or refrain from taking, an action under his or her scope of responsibility), which meant the Court had to hear the case under original jurisdiction (as a trial court). That gave them less latitude for denying Marbury's application, since, by law, the Supreme Court would have been the point of entry into the federal judiciary, and Marbury had a legitimate grievance. Agreeing to hear the case also gave the Court an opportunity to declare Section 13 of the Judiciary Act unconstitutional, because Congress had overreached its authority by assigning the Court original jurisdiction over something not specifically prescribed by the Constitution. This validated the Court's right of judicial review (the ability to analyze laws in terms of adherence to the Constitution, and nullify legislation that doesn't conform), thus strengthening the Judicial branch and making it more equal to the other two branches of government.
Who thinks A large republic is less likely to have an all powerful faction?
MADISON
Who thinks A large republic is less likely to have an all-powerful faction?
MADISON
Why did Dolley Madison die?
The manner and reason of Dolley Madison's death was not disclosed. It is likely the cause was natural since she was over 80 years old.
