The Marbury V. Madison Case

Throughout my time as a Political Science major a constant topic in the conversations was that of judicial review. My professor’s automatically assume we know everything there is to know about judicial review. So when it comes to the case of Marbury V. Madison I knew the basics of the case but I did not know the reasons and all the facts. When I picked this case it was out of confusion behind the events that gave the Supreme Court its powers. Through examining the legal, environmental and personal perspective of the case we can get to the bottom of why they ruled way they did. The Marbury v. Madison case was the first of its kind because it was questioning who had the final say when it came to conflicts between the constitution and a ruling. When I was looking through which type of law the case dealt with, administrative law, which is classified as the scope of law that involves any or all interactions with the Federal Government is what it was called. The Marbury v. Madison case began with John Adams. The former president attempted to appoint William Marbury as a Justice of the Peace, but failed to complete the formal appointment before his presidency was terminated. He was trying to appoint sixteen to the bench. Article II,
Section 2, Clause 2 and 3 of the United States Constitution, known as the
Appointments Clause, states
“2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”
As a member of the Federalist Party, John Adams wanted to appoint as many of his fellow Federalists to the cabinet of the President of the United States. The case of Marbury v. Madison deals with the process of appointing these important government officials. The appointment procedure for Justices of the Peace required completion within a President’s term. An official appointment had to be made while the President was active in his duties. William Marbury’s appointment was not completed in this timeframe which meant that Marbury could not be appointed. Expecting to be permitted as a Justice of the Peace, Marbury assumed his role but was denied by the new president, Thomas Jefferson and his Secretary of State, James Madison which would later be clear that President Jefferson had the right to do. Jefferson and Madison rejected Marbury’s appointment by refusing to finalize the commission process. When Marbury received the news that he could not collect his commission he was upset and brought the case before the Supreme Court. The case of Marbury v. Madison was reviewed by Chief Justice John Marshall.

The case eventually had to be ruled on through the court process. There are three questions legal experts say needed to be answered in order for the court to rule on this: 1. Do the plaintiffs have a right to receive their commissions? 2. Can they sue for their commissions in court? 3. Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the delivery of their commissions? So Marshall’s Court came to the unanimous decision of Yes and No. Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the unanimous opinion. The Supreme Court held that the Constitution grants the president the power to appoint and commission officers of the United States through Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. Because the only evidence of the appointment is the commission, the two actions are tied together. Without the commission, the appointment is not complete, and so the president’s signature on the commission is the final step in the appointment process. The Court also held that, upon appointment, the officers have acquired rights to their positions under the law. If those rights are denied, then they may seek redress in the courts. When this was being decided it was seen as them getting something that was guaranteed but the court’s decision on the last aspect of this case is where it gets sticky. Marbury and others sought an original action for their commissions in the Supreme Court which they wanted the court to appoint them to the positions. But the court appointing them to that positon would and did conflicts with Article III Section 2 of the Constitution. The judicial power in the United States extends to all cases under the Constitution and the Supreme Court is bound to decide cases according to the Constitution rather than the law when the two conflict. So if a law is found to be in conflict with the Constitution, then the law is invalid. In this case, Section 13 of the Judiciary Act conflicted with the Constitution and is therefore void. Thus, lacking authority, the Supreme Court canceled Marbury's claim. In Marbury v. Madison, John Marshall said that William Marbury was entitled to the position that was granted by John Adams, but the final decision ultimately belonged to the new President, Thomas Jefferson.
The environmental perspective also played a big part in this because of the time period in history.
We had just gained our independence and we were learning how to be independent. The Federalist party was very big in government and the entire court was Federalist and they were a major political party in the early years of the U.S. favoring a strong centralized national government. The ruling showed unity between the branches because it was President Jefferson’s right not to appoint Marbury to the position but if they would have gone against the president that ruling would have stood for everything they were against. That ruling for Marbury would have made the Branches look unified and that is against everything federalist stand
for.
There is also this legal perspective to this bill which was very clear. The constitution stays that the president has the responsibility to appoint these justices. I believe in examining who’s duty that was specified as the judges did not feel they had the right to appoint Marbury to this position. The Constitution is to be the governing document for all the land and if any law is in conflicts with the constitution it will not win.
The judges on Marshall’s court were, William Cushing, William Paterson, Samuel Chase, Bushrod Washington and Alfred Moore at the time of Marbury v. Madison. They all came from the DMV and surrounding area’s and I believe that the personal lives of the judges may have been an issue in ruling. Bushrod Washington was George Washington’s nephew so to me that’s is an ethical dilemma for me personally which I believe could have contributed to him voting not to appoint Marbury. Outside forces can influence you in your thinking especially if your uncle was president and a federalist. Alfred Moore was not even present for the case because of his severe illnesses which means that even if he thought that they should appoint him, he could not argue the case because he was not there. Samuel Chase was to me one of the worst options for a judge because he was expelled from forensic club for “extremely irregular and indecent behavior”. He was also was impeached because of party biases which to me is a clear indicator that his ethics could have been compromised because of his loyalty to his party. William Patterson and William Cushing were both descried as quiet and but Cushing more than Patterson. Cushing never had an opposing opinion from whatever the majority was which put his into this weird place of not having much info on his being. The connotation’s that go along with being quiet are usually that they are push overs and afraid to speak up so this could have something to do with why they all voted the way they voted.