Top-Rated Free Essay
Preview

Marbury Vs. Madision

Good Essays
549 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Marbury Vs. Madision
Marbury v. Madison
Period 1
09-17-14

The Supreme Court of the United States is the only court specifically created by the Constitution, and eight associate justices. The Supreme Court can issue writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the principle and usage of laws, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States, due to the fact that Section 13 gave the Supreme Court that power. But with the federal laws, I believe the Supreme Court judges should be able to have the power to deem a federal law unconstitutional and they can disregard it because they represent the U.S Constitution and must uphold it.
The Judicial Branch consists of the Supreme Court and the judges, and the Supreme Court interprets the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court deals with cases involving the Constitution , the federal laws, treaties and disputes between the states. It does the job its set up to do and the job only, on what powers are allowed by the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear about the position of the Supreme Court as stated in Article III. “The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in One Supreme Court and in such inferior courts that the congress may from time to time ordain and establish.: “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States and Treaties.”
With the Marbury v. Madison case, Marshall’s powerful opinion was based on three propositions. One, the Constitution is by it’s own terms, the supreme law of the land. Two, all the legislative acts and other actions of government are subordinate to the supreme law and cannot be allowed to conflict with it. Three, the judges are sworn to enforce the provisions of the Constitution, and therefore must refuse to enforce any government action they find to be in conflict with it. In this decision Chief Justice Marshall claimed for the Supreme Court the right to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional , and so laid the foundation for the judicial branch’s key role in the development of the American system of government.
I believe the Supreme Court should have the power to overturn unconstitutional federal laws, it’s their task. Due to the fact that they mainly enforce the Constitution and if it’s unconstitutional then it’s violating the sections and the laws. Also with the Rule of Law was made to distinguish between judicial decisions and political decisions. That no one is above the law, everyone subject to the law of the land shall be treated equally, the government is the subject of the law, and America should have a “government of laws and not of men.” Plus Alexander Hamilton wrote, ”the complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited constitution” ; to maintain full judicial independence, the constitution clearly states in Article III, that the judicial power lies with the Supreme Court and the inferior courts established by the Congress.
The Supreme Court should and do have the right to declare whether a federal law is unconstitutional. The judges represent and protect the Constitutional , they also enforce and interpret it. The judicial power of the Supreme Court has the power to change or disregard laws.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    In Marbury v. Madison (1803) the supreme court had announced for the first time the concept that a court has the right to declare an act of congress void if it is inconsistent with the constitution. In addition William Marbury was an intended recipient of an appointment as a justice of the peace in the area of Columbia. Then when James Madison, Thomas Jefferson’s secretary of state, he refused to deliver Marbury’s commission. Marbury and 3 others joined and petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling delivery of the…

    • 90 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Marbury v. Madison:(1803) Judicial review In 1801, Justice William Marbury was to have received a commission from President Adams, but Secretary of State James Madison refused to issue the commission. Chief Justice Marshall stated that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which was the basis for Marbury's claim, conflicted with Article III of the Constitution. Marbury did not receive the commission. This case determined that the Supreme Court and not the states would have the ultimate word on whether an issue was in violation of the Constitution. The ruling, based on judicial review, made the Judicial Branch equal to the other two branches of government.…

    • 2027 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Marbury Vs. Madison Case

    • 629 Words
    • 3 Pages

    . Judicial review is usually associated with the U.S Supreme Court and is processed by most state and federal courts of law in the United States. Judicial review also determines whether or not state statues and state executive acts are valid. Judicial review came to part in 1803 where the Marbury VS Madison case was going on it was the first time they ruled the congress unconstitutional. The exercise of judicial review is about the important rules of judicial self-restraint which also allows the burden of proof to be…

    • 629 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The judicial Power of the United States has bodies that judge and interpret laws. This branch controls other branches. The judicial branch determines whether the acts of congress and president are constitutional. Other bodies control the judicial branch by nominating Supreme Court justices and federal judges. In the Roman Constitution twenty-eight judges are elected every two years. These judges decide punishment for criminals and they interpreted the Twelve Tables. There are other parts of this branch such as index, heard evidence and tried cases, proctors, commanded armies and judicial duties and quaesters, these people helped leaders with finances and also had criminal justice responsibilities.…

    • 503 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    “Its is emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department, to say what the law is.” (Ducat, Craig Constitutional Interpretation p. 10) These seventeen words written two hundred years ago made the highest court in the United States supreme, and making it so, Chief Justice John Marshall’s words in that sentence continue to make an impact on every Supreme Court case thereafter. Justice Marshall laid the basic foundations to protect the Federal system that was established by the Constitution. In Marbury v. Madison, McCulloch v. Maryland, and Gibbons v. Ogden the Supreme Court maintained the United States as a federal state.…

    • 520 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Court through Chief Justice Marshall has shown that the constitution is more superior than the federal law. No place in the constitution affirms the words Justice Marshall proclaimed. In making his judgment, Marshall stated that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” There is no mention of such words in the Constitution, but it has come to the attention of the courts that whenever there is a conflict of law, the constitution is always supreme (Murphy,…

    • 810 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Taking place in 1803, Marbury v. Madison was the landmark case that set the standard of judicial review into effect. This means that any previous ruling on a case can be used as a precedent and can determine the verdict. The background of this case is all sorts of messy; when John Adams’ term was near its end, William Marbury and a few others were appointed as “justices of peace” for the District of Columbia, however their positions were never official. When Thomas Jefferson came into office, he told James Madison, the Secretary of State at the time, to deny Marshall and the others’ commissions, so Marbury and the others then sued Madison. John Marshall ruled in favor of Marbury however could not deliver his commission because the constitution conflicted with a legislative act known as the Judiciary Act of 1789. This case was significant because it served as the basis for Article III of the Constitution that sets the standards…

    • 529 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Marshall’s ruling for Marbury v Madison was one of the most controversial decisions to ever be handed down from the Supreme Court. The landmark decision ultimately made the Judicial branch the most powerful branch because of the judicial review. With judicial review the Supreme Court has the ability to interpret the Constitution or any law any way that the court sees fit accordance to the law. Marshall’s ruling was clear and concise. Marbury did have the right to his appoint under law. Marbury had the right to seek a remedy because he deemed himself injured but the Supreme Court could not issue the writ because it was not of original jurisdiction. If Marbury was to have went through a lower level court, the court would have issued the writ and taken his appointment as the chief justice of…

    • 687 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Written by Chief Justice John Marshall, the majority ruled that while Marbury was entitled to receive his commission and that courts are able to grant remedies, the Supreme Court did not have the right to grant the plaintiff his legal order. The reasoning behind this was that Marbury’s request was based on a law passed by Congress that the Court deemed unconstitutional (Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789). The Court then stated that when the Constitution and the law conflict, it is the Supreme Court’s duty to uphold the law of the land and rule in unity with the Constitution.…

    • 580 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Marbury v. Madison was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. The decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of…

    • 699 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Marbury v. Madison (1803) changed the role of the Supreme Court forever. The case started as a conflict of delivering court commissions, but ended as a precedent for the Supreme Court. During the case Marshall ruled that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789—authorizing the Supreme Court to issue writs to government officials—was unconstitutional. This began the practice declaring laws that…

    • 433 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Marbury v. Madison (1803) case was the beginning of the corrupt theories of John Marshall. William Marbury had been a “midnight judge” appointed by John Adams in the last hours of being president. Marbury had been named Justice for Peace for the District of Columbia, but when Secretary of State James Madison shelved the position, he sued for its delivery. Chief Justice Marshall knew that his Jeffersonian rivals, deep-rooted in the executive branch, would not attempt to enforce a writ to deliver the commission to Federalist Marbury. He therefore dismissed Marbury’s suit. Despite the dismissal of the case, Marshall snatched a victory from this judicial defeat. In explaining his ruling, Marshall said that part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 on which Marshall tried to base his appeal was unconstitutional. This attempted to assign the Supreme Court power that the Constitution had not anticipated. This act by Marshall attempted the shift of power to the Supreme Courts for his benefit. This greatly magnified the authority of the court.…

    • 664 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Judicial Act of 1789 gave Congress the act of granting the Supreme Court the right to issue writs of mandamus. Article III of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the authority to review acts of Congress to validate whether they are unconstitutional or not and therefore void. Article III of the Constitution also states "the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction." The Supreme Court held that they had the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether or not they were constitutional and void those that were not, but that Congress did not have the right to expand the scope of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction beyond what was specified in the Constitution. The Supreme Court also held that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional and therefore void.…

    • 981 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The Supreme Court of the United States has the highest authority in the Judicial Branch and is the third branch of government. The function of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution. The Supreme Court looks at federal and state statues and executive actions to determine if they comply with the United States Constitution. On the Supreme Court, there are nine justices that hear cases that have been appealed through the justice system. When the Supreme Court rules in a case that is the last and final ruling for the defendant.…

    • 1858 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    Its powers include interpreting the Constitution, reviewing laws. And deciding cases involving states’ rights. The judicial branch really up holds the 4th amendment which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.also the 5th amendment No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5),and the 6th amendments which explains In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for…

    • 2322 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Better Essays