Marbury Vs. Madison: The Supreme Court
Mabry v Madison3
ABSTRACT
Prior to Marbury v Madison, the Supreme Court only received it's judicial powers through the construction of the Constitution and what legislature enacted. Marbury v Madison was known as the first judicial review conducted by the Supreme Court. As a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Marbury v Madison, it gave the court its power to review the acts of Congress and the Executive and to oppose any acts of the legislature and the Executive that violated Constitutional rights of all citizens in the United States. The Supreme Court began its rise to an equal branch of the government.
We, as citizens, look to our supremacy in judicial law to the Supreme Court, who establishes laws that protect …show more content…
requested a writ of mandamus to the Supreme Court to order the Executive Officer, President Thomas Jefferson, to allow him and his colleagues to take their office as justices of peace from the appointment by John Adams, former President. The Supreme Court first had to decide as to whether the appointment was valid and that the commission had been completed. In the reasoning of the Court, they looked upon section two of Article II of the Constitution which states "The President shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States." Section three of Article II states "He shall commission all the officers of the United States." The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the commission was valid because the constitutional power of appointment had been conducted when John Adams signed the appointment, the Secretary of State, James Madison, had placed the seal of the United States by the President's signature and the Secretary of State had recorded it into the books. Therefore, the commission was valid, and Marbury was due his commission even though it was never transmitted to …show more content…
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. The final issue before the Court was to validate their authority in the issuing of writs of mandamus. Since the court held that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because
ABSTRACT
Prior to Marbury v Madison, the Supreme Court only received it's judicial powers through the construction of the Constitution and what legislature enacted. Marbury v Madison was known as the first judicial review conducted by the Supreme Court. As a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Marbury v Madison, it gave the court its power to review the acts of Congress and the Executive and to oppose any acts of the legislature and the Executive that violated Constitutional rights of all citizens in the United States. The Supreme Court began its rise to an equal branch of the government.
We, as citizens, look to our supremacy in judicial law to the Supreme Court, who establishes laws that protect …show more content…
requested a writ of mandamus to the Supreme Court to order the Executive Officer, President Thomas Jefferson, to allow him and his colleagues to take their office as justices of peace from the appointment by John Adams, former President. The Supreme Court first had to decide as to whether the appointment was valid and that the commission had been completed. In the reasoning of the Court, they looked upon section two of Article II of the Constitution which states "The President shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States." Section three of Article II states "He shall commission all the officers of the United States." The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the commission was valid because the constitutional power of appointment had been conducted when John Adams signed the appointment, the Secretary of State, James Madison, had placed the seal of the United States by the President's signature and the Secretary of State had recorded it into the books. Therefore, the commission was valid, and Marbury was due his commission even though it was never transmitted to …show more content…
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. The final issue before the Court was to validate their authority in the issuing of writs of mandamus. Since the court held that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because