- Information
- AI Chat
APGov SC 1803 Marbury - N/A
Constitutional law of Ghana and its history (FLAW306)
University of Ghana
Recommended for you
Students also viewed
- Judgment PS Investment V Ceredec & ORS-1
- Republic v Tommy Thompson Books L TD and Others
- Yakubu Awbego Vrs. Tindana Agongo Akubayela ; Immovable property – Allodial title to land, ownership of land, traditional evidence, resolution of conflicts arising from traditional evidence
- Police Service ACT, 1970 (ACT 350)
- Chieftaincy Under THE LAW - Ollenu J
- Ex Parte Bannerman - case
Preview text
AP American Government Required Supreme Court Cases
Marbury v. Madison , 1803
S y n o p s i s o f t h e C a s e In the fiercely contested U. presidential election of 1800, the three major candidates were Thomas Jefferson, Aaron Burr, and incumbent John Adams. Adams finished third. As the results of the election became clear in early 1801, Adams and his Federalist Party were determined to exercise their influence in the weeks remaining before Jefferson took office on March 4, 1801, and did all they could to fill federal offices with "anti-Jeffersonians" who were loyal to the Federalists. On March 2, 1801, just two days before his presidential term was to end, Adams nominated nearly 60 Federalist supporters to positions the Federalist-controlled Congress had newly created. These appointees – known as the "Midnight Judges" – included William Marbury, a prosperous financier from Maryland. An ardent Federalist, Marbury was active in Maryland politics and a vigorous supporter of the Adams presidency. The following day, March 3, Adams's nominations were approved en masse by the U. Senate. The commissions were immediately signed and sealed by Adams's Secretary of State, John Marshall, who had been named the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in January but continued acting as Adams's Secretary of State until Jefferson took office. The commissions needed to be delivered to the appointees, and so Marshall dispatched his younger brother James Marshall to deliver them. With only one day left before Jefferson's inauguration, James Marshall was able to deliver most of the commissions, but a few – including Marbury's – were not delivered. On March 4, 1801, Thomas Jefferson was sworn in and became the 3rd President of the United States. As soon as he was able, Jefferson instructed his new Secretary of State, James Madison, to withhold the undelivered appointments. In Jefferson's opinion, the commissions were void because they had not been delivered in time. Without the commissions, the appointees were unable to assume the offices and duties to which they had been appointed. In December 1801, Marbury filed suit against Madison in the Supreme Court, asking the Court to issue a writ of mandamus forcing Madison to deliver Marbury's commission. This lawsuit resulted in the case of Marbury v. Madison. Aside from its inherent legal complexities, the case created a difficult political dilemma for Marshall and the rest of the Supreme Court. If the Court ruled in favor of Marbury and issued a writ of mandamus ordering Madison to deliver the commission, Jefferson and Madison would likely have simply ignored the order, which would have made the Court look powerless and emphasized the "shakiness" of the judiciary. On the other hand, a bare ruling against Marbury would have given Jefferson and his Republican-Democrat Party a clear political victory.
J u d g e m e n t: The 4 – 0 decision (due to illness, two of the six justices were unavailable to hear the case) expanded the power of the Supreme Court in general, by announcing that the 1789 law which (it was claimed) gave the Court jurisdiction in this case was unconstitutional. Marbury thus lost his case, which the Court said he should have won, but, in explaining its inability to provide Marbury the remedy it said he deserved, the Court established the principle of judicial review, i e, the power to declare a law unconstitutional Chief Justice Marshall structured the Court’s opinion around a series of three questions: (1) did Marbury have a right to his commission? (2) if Marbury had a right to his commission, was there legal remedy for him to obtain it, and (3) if there was such a remedy, count the Supreme Court legally issue it?
C o u r t J u d i c i a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n On Question One ➢ Marshall wrote that Marbury had a right to his commission because all appropriate procedures were followed – the commission had been properly signed and sealed. While Madison contended that the commissions were void if not delivered, the Court disagreed in saying that the delivery of the commission was merely a custom, not an essential element of the commission itself. On Question Two ➢ The Court ruled that the laws clearly afforded Marbury a remedy. As a general matter, Marshall said, the law provides remedies: "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury." The specific issue, however, was whether the courts (part of the judicial branch of the government) could give Marbury a remedy against Madison (who as Secretary of State was part of the executive branch of the government.) The Court held that so long as the remedy involved a mandatory duty to a specific person, and not a political matter left to discretion, the courts could provide the legal remedy. Marshall wrote: "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men." On Question Three
➢ After concluding that Marbury had a right to his commission and that a legal remedy existed to provide it to him, the Court then turned to whether or not it was proper for the Supreme Court to issue the writ Marbury requested. Marshall first reiterated the distinction between the executive branch's political discretion (which he said the courts could not review) and its legally mandated ministerial duties (which the courts could review). Marshall then addressed the most important issue of the opinion: the propriety of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the matter. Marbury had argued that the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over his case. “The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after specially provided for; and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.” Judiciary Act of 1789, Section 13 (excerpt) ➢ Marshall's discussion of this issue first explains the difference between original jurisdiction (in which a court has the power to be the first to hear and decide a case) and appellate jurisdiction (in which a party to a decision appeals to a higher court which has the power to review the previous decision and then either affirm or overturn it.) Because Marbury filed his suit directly with the Supreme Court, the Court would need to exercise original jurisdiction to hear it; if the Court's jurisdiction over writs of mandamus was limited to appellate jurisdiction only, it would be unable to properly hear and decide Marbury's directly-filed case. The Court agreed with Marbury and interpreted the relevant section of the Judiciary Act to authorize mandamus on original jurisdiction. ➢ After concluding that the Judiciary Act authorized the Court's original jurisdiction, Marshall noted that this clashed with Article III of the U. Constitution, which establishes the judicial branch of the U. government. “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall .... Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” U. Constitution, Article III, Section 2. ➢ This section of Article III of the Constitution establishes that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases where a U. state is a party to the lawsuit, or where the lawsuit involves foreign dignitaries. Neither of these categories covered Marbury's commission, and so, according to the Constitution, the Court could only have heard Marbury's case while exercising appellate jurisdiction. Since Marshall interpreted the Judicial Act to have given the Court original jurisdiction over the matter, this meant that the Judicial Act apparently expanded the initial scope of the Court's original jurisdiction. Marshall ruled that Congress cannot increase the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction as it was set down in the Constitution, and therefore that the relevant portion of Section 13 of the Judiciary Act violated Article III of the Constitution. ➢ Marshall's justification for the Court's judicial review power began with a long disquisition on the hierarchy between statutory law and constitutional law. Marshall held that in the event of conflict between the Constitution and statutory laws passed by Congress, the constitutional law must be supreme. ➢ The Court's opinion gives many reasons in support of judicial review. Marshall stated that (1) deciding the constitutionality of the laws it applies is an inherent part of the American judiciary's role. Marshall wrote: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." (2) Marshall reasoned that the U. Constitution places limits on the American government's powers, and that those limits would be meaningless unless they were subject to judicial review and enforcement. (3) The written nature of the Constitution, he wrote, inherently established judicial review. In a line borrowed from Alexander Hamilton's essay Federalist No. 78, Marshall wrote: "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and [so] that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written." In another argument borrowed from Federalist No. 78, (4) Marshall stated that "a law repugnant to the Constitution is void" , and that the judiciary had no choice but to follow the Constitution. (5) Marshall also argued that the authorization in Article III of the Constitution that the Court can decide cases arising "under this Constitution" implied that the Court had the power to strike down laws conflicting with the Constitution. (6) Lastly, Marshall argued that judicial review is implied in Article VI of the Constitution, since it declares the supreme law of the United States to be not the Constitution and the laws of the United States in general, but rather the Constitution and laws made "in Pursuance thereof". ➢ This established the principle of judicial review in the United States, so that American courts have the power to strike down laws, statutes, and executive actions that contravene the U. Constitution. The Court's decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.
R e l a t e d C a s e s a n d D o c u m e n t s ➢ Articles of Confederation (1781). Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution created an independent judiciary, and gave it power to resolve matters arising under the Constitution, controversies between two states, and disputes between the federal government and a state, suggesting that the Framers of the Constitution intended the court to act as, in effect, an arbitrator, to whose decisions the parties appearing before it would be bound. Such is a point of contrast between the two documents, and an approach in support of the concept of judicial review.
APGov SC 1803 Marbury - N/A
Course: Constitutional law of Ghana and its history (FLAW306)
University: University of Ghana
- Discover more from:
Recommended for you
Students also viewed
- Judgment PS Investment V Ceredec & ORS-1
- Republic v Tommy Thompson Books L TD and Others
- Yakubu Awbego Vrs. Tindana Agongo Akubayela ; Immovable property – Allodial title to land, ownership of land, traditional evidence, resolution of conflicts arising from traditional evidence
- Police Service ACT, 1970 (ACT 350)
- Chieftaincy Under THE LAW - Ollenu J
- Ex Parte Bannerman - case