SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Law Genius (Ft. John Marshall) – Marbury v. Madison

COURT –

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

0 (reset)

The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States, but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it. Law Genius (Ft. John Marshall) – Marbury v. Madison

ANALYSIS — What Jefferson did by ordering Madison to deny Marbury the appointment was repugnant. But the Supreme Court does not review the acts of Presidents. It reviews the law.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

0 (reset)

Suggest an improvement Authors

Show other contributors +

The oath of office, too, imposed by the Legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words:

I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him? Law Genius (Ft. John Marshall) – Marbury v. Madison

ANALYSIS — This is a bit a simple but profound logic:

If a Supreme Court Judge swears to do his duty in a manner consistent with the Constitution, then inspecting and reviewing the Constitution must in turn be the duty of the Supreme Court Judge.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

0 (reset)

Suggest an improvement Authors

Show other contributors +

That, by signing the commission of Mr. Marbury, the President of the United States appointed him a justice [p168] of peace for the County of Washington in the District of Columbia, and that the seal of the United States, affixed thereto by the Secretary of State, is conclusive testimony of the verity of the signature, and of the completion of the appointment, and that the appointment conferred on him a legal right to the office for the space of five years. Law Genius (Ft. John Marshall) – Marbury v. Madison

CONCLUSION 1 — This answers the question of ISSUE 1.

Marbury has a right to appointment to his position since he was appointed by then President Adams. Adams was within his power to make this appointment according to Article 2 Section 2 of the constitution, thus Marbury is being stripped of his right when Jefferson refused to allow him to take office. Since Marbury is being stripped of a right, the Supreme Court has a controversy to preside over. If there was no controversy, the case would have ended here.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

0 (reset)

Suggest an improvement Authors

Show other contributors +

2. That, having this legal title to the office, he has a consequent right to the commission, a refusal to deliver which is a plain violation of that right, for which the laws of his country afford him a remedy. Law Genius (Ft. John Marshall) – Marbury v. Madison

CONCLUSION 2 — This answers ISSUE 2

Marbury has a right to a remedy. Adams assigned him a specific duty and he is expected to perform that duty. Since he is being prevented from doing so by Jefferson and Madison, Marbury has a right to seek remedy for injuries received from his inability to perform his duties as Justice of the Peace of D.C.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

0 (reset)

Suggest an improvement Authors

Show other contributors +

It is scarcely necessary for the Court to disclaim all pretensions to such a jurisdiction. An extravagance so absurd and excessive could not have been entertained for a moment. The province of the Court is solely to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the Executive or Executive officers perform duties in which they have a discretion. Questions, in their nature political or which are, by the Constitution and laws, submitted to the Executive, can never be made in this court.

But, if this be not such a question; if so far from being an intrusion into the secrets of the cabinet, it respects a paper which, according to law, is upon record, and to a copy of which the law gives a right, on the payment of ten cents; if it be no intermeddling with a subject over which the Executive can be considered as having exercised any control; what is there in the exalted station of the officer which shall bar a citizen from asserting in a court of justice his legal rights, or shall forbid a court to listen to the claim or to issue a mandamus directing the performance of a duty not depending on Executive discretion, but on particular acts of Congress and the general principles of law? Law Genius (Ft. John Marshall) – Marbury v. Madison

FACT — The Supreme Court reviews the laws and not the actions of the President. Here, Marshall seems to be at the same time defining the limits of judicial review and teasing President Jefferson.

Try reading this passage in a sarcastic voice if it is not clear how Marshall might be teasing Jefferson here.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

0 (reset)

Suggest an improvement Authors

Show other contributors +

In the same case, he says,

this writ ought to be used upon all occasions where the law has established no specific remedy, and where in justice and good government there ought to be one. Law Genius (Ft. John Marshall) – Marbury v. Madison

FACT — These are the grounds on which Mansfield believed a writ of mandamus ought to be issued.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

0 (reset)

Suggest an improvement Authors

Show other contributors +

Lord Mansfield, in 3 Burrows, 1266, in the case of The King v. Baker et al., states with much precision and explicitness the cases in which this writ may be used.

"Whenever," says that very able judge,

there is a right to execute an office, perform a service, or exercise a franchise (more especially if it be in a matter of public concern or attended with profit), and a person is kept out of possession, or dispossessed of such right, and [p169] has no other specific legal remedy, this court ought to assist by mandamus, upon reasons of justice, as the writ expresses, and upon reasons of public policy, to preserve peace, order and good government. Law Genius (Ft. John Marshall) – Marbury v. Madison

FACT — This is what a writ of mandamus is. Marshall relies on Mansfield’s decision in King v. Baker for precedent.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

0 (reset)

Suggest an improvement Authors

Show other contributors +

It remains to be inquired whether,

3. He is entitled to the remedy for which he applies. This depends on:

1. The nature of the writ applied for, and

2. The power of this court.

1. The nature of the writ. Law Genius (Ft. John Marshall) – Marbury v. Madison

ISSUE and ANALYSIS — The critical inquiry of the Court revolves around ISSUE 3 and the inquiry that follows is:

What is a writ of manadamus and does the Supreme Court have the power to issue such a writ in this case?

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

0 (reset)

Suggest an improvement Authors

Show other contributors +

The authority, therefore, given to the Supreme Court by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States to issue writs of mandamus to public officers appears not to be warranted by the Constitution, and it becomes necessary to inquire whether a jurisdiction so conferred can be exercised. Law Genius (Ft. John Marshall) – Marbury v. Madison

ANALYSIS and CONCLUSION 3 — The inquiry that follows would play a critical role in Marshall deciding that the issuance of a writ of manadamus would be outside the scope of the Supreme Court’s power. At a certain point marked below, the case turns entirely to a discussion of the power and role of Judicial Review itself.

The Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus in favor of Marbury. Article 3 Section 2 governs the types of cases that can be decided by the Supreme Court without being heard in any lower court, this is known as original jurisdiction. This is not a case that falls within the Courts power of original jurisdiction, hence issuing the writ would conflict with the powers assigned to them. Marshall declared that no law can conflict with the power or laws found in the constitution since it is the paramount set of laws.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

0 (reset)

Suggest an improvement Authors

Show other contributors +