Marbury Vs Madison Case Summary
The article Marbury v. Madison and the Establishment of Judicial Autonomy by William E. Nelson, discusses “. . . a balance between two concepts democracy . . . and the rule of law. . .” (Nelson 240). The court case Marbury v. Madison took place in 1803. This court case is famous for the creation of judicial review; “the doctrine allowing courts to hold acts of Congress unconstitutional” (Nelson 240). During the presidency of Adam, sixteen circuit judges were appointed. Adams secretary of state at this time was Marshall, whom could not “deliver the commission for one of the new justices of the peace . . . William Marbury, before the end of President Adams’s term . . .” (248). Marbury v. Madison was started because Thomas Jefferson’s secretary of state James Madison refused to give William Marbury as well as others their commissions. Because of this act by Madison, Marbury as well as others decided to petition for a writ of mandamus for their commissions. According to Cornell Law School, a writ of mandamus is “an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion”. The case of Marbury v Madison led to the Judiciary Act of 1801. This
…show more content…
Because of this decision, Marshall is left with a very important question “. . . whether Marbury had a remedy for the deprivation of the right [commission]” (249). The Judiciary Act of 1789 allowed the use of writs of mandamus. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was limited and was not given on the cases of a mandamus. The only way the Supreme Court could use a mandamus was if the Congress gave them power where the constitution did not; or if “the action for mandamus in the Supreme Court was not in the commencement of an original proceeding but a form of appeal from the official against whom the writ was being sought”
Because of this decision, Marshall is left with a very important question “. . . whether Marbury had a remedy for the deprivation of the right [commission]” (249). The Judiciary Act of 1789 allowed the use of writs of mandamus. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was limited and was not given on the cases of a mandamus. The only way the Supreme Court could use a mandamus was if the Congress gave them power where the constitution did not; or if “the action for mandamus in the Supreme Court was not in the commencement of an original proceeding but a form of appeal from the official against whom the writ was being sought”