Marbury v. Madison
Comparison to Other Cases
Constitutional Issues: Power of the Supreme Court
Decision
Background/Facts of Case
Original Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court's ability to hear a case for the first time.
Through this decision, the Supreme Court upheld the idea that they are only able to review a case with original jurisdiction if it involves "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party". In any other case, they are not able to bring their case directly to the Supreme Court, including William Marbury.
Judicial Review: The Supreme Court's ability to review the constitutionality of legislative and executive acts.
The Supreme Court declared that the Constitution was “superior, paramount law”. The Supreme Court decided that if ordinary laws cause conflict with the Constitution, they shall be deemed unconstitutional. It is the job of the Supreme Court, through judicial review, to interpret the Constitution and review a law's constitutionality. Judicial heavily expanded the power power of the federal government, more specifically the Supreme Court, as they could also question the constitutionality of state's laws as well. For instance, if a law violates a person's civil liberties that are listed in the Constitution, the Supreme Court can strike it down.
Majority Ruling: framed as whether court had power to issue the writ of mandamus
Connections to the Essential Questions:
United States vs Lopez
Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer
During the Korean war, President Truman issued an executive order directing the Secretary of Commerce to seize and operate most of the nation’s steel mills.
Did the President have the constitutional authority to seize and operate the steel mills?
The Court held that the President lacks constitutional authority to seize and operate the steel mills.
Similar to Madison v Marbury, the Court held that the Constitution is the superior law as they found no congressional statute that authorized the President to take possession of private property.
Congress passed the Gun Free Schools Act, which made it unlawful for a person to possess a firearm in a school zone.
The Supreme Court declared the Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 to be unconstitutional.
Congress did not have the power to pass the law as the federal government was overextending the jurisdiction of the commerce clause
Similar to Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court used judicial review to review a law passed by Congress to check for any violations of civil liberties and civil rights. This ruling protected the right to bear arms (2nd amendment) and the 14th amendment which states that states cannot take people's rights away
Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized Supreme Court to Issue Writ of Mandamus
John Adams appoint judges during his pesidency and his Secretary of State, John Marshall, was supposed to "deliver the commissions"
John Marshall thought the next president would take care of it, so he didn't do it
Next president, Thomas Jefferson, told his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the commisions
b/c he didn't want judges from other party
William Marbury, a judge he didn't recieve his commision, sued Madison and asked Supreme Court to issue writ of Mandamus
Tricky Politics
new head Justice was John Marshall (Federalist), Jefferson and Madison were Democratic Republicans trying to prevent Federalists from taking office
issue writ of mandamus --> Madison likely refuse and make Court look weak
not issue writ of mandamus --> look like Marshall backing down out of fear
Definitions
Writ of Mandamus: a command by a superior court to a public officer or lower court to perform a special duty
Supremacy Clause (Article VI): states ust abide the Constitution and the fedral government's laws and treaties
"Deliver the Commissions": finish paperwork and give to appointed judges; necessary to actually become a judge
Article III Section 2: Supreme Court's original jurisdiction can only be applied to “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party”
How have U.S. Supreme Court rulings defined civil liberties and civil rights?
w/ the establishment of judicial review, the Supreme Court can protect civil liberties through their interpretations of the Constitution
To what extent do the U.S. Constitution and its amendments protect against undue government infringement on essential liberties and from invidious discrimination?
Judicial Review
Supremecy Clause
protect the US citizen's civil liberties from federal and state government by striking down laws that are unconstitutional
all state's must follow the Constitution and obey Supreme Court's decisions, so can't ignore the civil liberties defined in the Constitution
technically, yes illegal for Madison to not deliver the commissions
Supreme Court could NOT force commision delivery through writ of mandamus
declared Secion 13 of Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional
Section 13 of Judiciary Act of 1789: stated that the Supreme Court could "issue 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” as a matter of original jurisdiction
overextended Supreme Court's original jurisdiction listed in Article III Section 2 of the Constitution
set precedent of Supreme Court's ability to strike down laws as unconstitutional