Marbury Vs Madison Essay
Marbury v. Madison was the landmark case that laid the foundation for judicial review in the United States. Article III of the Constitution, in granting power to the judiciary, extended judicial power to various types of cases but made no comment as to whether a legislative or executive action could be struck down. Chief Justice Marshall, relying on reasoning and the Constitution, read the power of judicial review over acts of the government into constitutional law, thus setting the precedent for future cases. He said, “a law repugnant to the constitution is void and that when a law is in opposition to the constitution, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply. It is the Supreme Court’s duty to say what the law is and thus has the power of judicial review over federal legislation/acts.” The power of judicial review was then extended by the Supreme Court to cover actions of state governments, as shown in Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee. In this case, the Court ruled that it could review and overrule state court
…show more content…
Madison, the majority said that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which gives the Supreme Court judicial review over writs of mandamus, attempted to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Article III of the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court authority to review writs. Therefore, the two laws were in conflict. The Supreme Court’s duty is 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 void. In contrast, in Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, the Supreme Court used the Judiciary Act of 1789 to say that Congress had properly authorized the Supreme Court to review state court decisions of federal law. The majority also noted that there is nothing in the Constitution that limits the Supreme Court’s appellate
Madison, the majority said that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which gives the Supreme Court judicial review over writs of mandamus, attempted to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Article III of the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court authority to review writs. Therefore, the two laws were in conflict. The Supreme Court’s duty is 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 void. In contrast, in Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, the Supreme Court used the Judiciary Act of 1789 to say that Congress had properly authorized the Supreme Court to review state court decisions of federal law. The majority also noted that there is nothing in the Constitution that limits the Supreme Court’s appellate