| Marbury v. Madison |
Dr. Stanford
|
| D5 U.S. (1 Cr.) 137 (1803) |
April 24, 2016
|
I. FACTS Marbury and others had been appted to offices (DC justice of peace) by outgoing Pres. J. Adams, but never rec'd their commissions as the new Pres. (Jefferson) and his secy of state (Madison) refused to deliver. Marbury brought his case directly to the Sup.Ct. under the Judiciary Act of 1789, which allowed the Sup. Ct. to issue writs (orders) of mandamus to federal officials, asking for his apptmt. Party politics at work due to pres. transition. And Marshall, who had been secy of state under Adams, now was Chief Justice of Sup. Ct.
II. ISSUES
1. Does Marbury have a right to his commission/appt?
2. If he has such a right that has not been provided, is there a legal remedy available?
3. Is that legal remedy a mandamus issued by the Sup. Ct.?
III. DECISION AND ACTION
1. Yes, Marbury has right to commission.
2. Yes, remedy available is found in Judiciary Act of 1789.
3. No, mandamus as found in Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional grant of power.
Unanimous, 4-0: "Rule...discharged" (Marbury loses)
IV. RATIONALE OF MAJORITY DECISION
C.J. Marshall: Addresses each of the 3 issues sequentially. In #1, he determines that because the commission was issued, signed by the Pres. and sealed by the Secy of State, it is a valid document and that Marbury was duly appted as justice of peace for a period of 5 years. This aspect of the decision was purely mechanical in nature in that Marshall strictly looked for certain rqmts. to have been met (logical exercise).
As to #2, since Marbury has a right, our laws must provide him with a remedy (great quotes: "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every indiv. to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury." and "The govt. of the US has been emphatically termed a govt. of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no rememdy for the violation of a vested legal right...). Marshall discusses the political powers of the Pres. in appts. and then goes on to argue that "the question whether a right has vested or not, in its nature, judicial and must be tried by the judicial authority." Therefore, he claims that the Court is the proper venue for seeking relief.
On issue #3, Marshall first explores the history of the mandamus (looks to England and early case in US-1792) and finds that mandamus is appropriate tool for remedy, but goes further and asks whether the US Sup. Ct. may issue it. Congress in Judiciary Act of 1789 provides that Court may issue a mandamus under its original jurisdiction, but Marshall determines that Congress has no such power to outline original jurisdiction of the Court under the Constitution through a careful examination of Art. III.
He next examines whether a law that is unconstitutional can take effect and determines not, using the argument that the supremacy and permanency of the Constitution cannot be undermined by legislation. Therefore, "an act of the legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, is void." And, he argues, that "it is the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is," and thereby claims the power of judicial review for the courts.
V. OTHER OPINIONS None.
VI. SUMMARY Marshall outlines the judicial power, establishes the right of judicial review and lays claim to the role of the court in declaring other branches' actions to be in violation of the Constitution. He also claims that it is the Court whose province is to interpret the Constitution. In doing so, he avoids a political confrontation that could have seriously undermined the power of the Court and places the Court squarely in the constellation of governmental powers.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS Mandamus: An court order requiring or forbidding an action. In class, we talked about the reading of the Constitution as text, for meaning of the words, original intent, and literalism. We also discussed the doctrinal developments that emanate from Sup. Ct. cases.