What was the significance of Marbury v. Madison?

Marbury v. Madison is significant because it established judicial review. After President John Adams lost his reelection bid to Thomas Jefferson, Adams appointed a number of Federalist judges in the late stages of his presidency, and these judges came to be known as the “midnight judges.” One of this judges, William Marbury, did not have his appointment delivered before Jefferson took office, and Jefferson’s Secretary of State, James Madison, promptly halted the appointment. Marbury sued Madison, arguing that Madison did not have the power to stop delivery of a previous appointment.
The Supreme Court was led by Chief Justice John Marshall at the time, and the Supreme Court cited part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional as part of their 1803 ruling.
On the surface, this did not seem like a very important case, but the precedent of judicial review, or the idea that the judicial branch is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, is monumental because it solidifies the judicial branch as being on the same level of power as the executive and legislative branches.
Marshall was a Federalist and a political opponent of Jefferson, and many view this ruling as an assertion of power by Marshall to establish the judicial branch as an entity able to check the power of the other two branches, which it succeeded in doing.
https://www.thoughtco.com/marbury-v-madison-104792


The case of Marbury v. Madison established the precedent of judicial review. In the closing days of his presidency, John Adams appointed several justices that would become known as the "midnight judges." Adams did this out of fear that his successor, Thomas Jefferson, would change several laws. The incoming Secretary of State, James Madison, blocked one of the justices, William Marbury. Marbury then sued Madison in a case that reached the Supreme Court.
In the case, Marshall ruled that Marbury had a right to his judgeship since he was appointed by the outgoing president. Marshall also ruled that the Supreme Court could not assign Marbury his position. The case set the precedent for judicial review, the act by which the Supreme Court could decide whether or not a law was constitutional. This ruling gave the judicial branch a very specific job within the framework of the Constitution. It gave the courts a check on the legislative and judicial branches in that the Supreme Court could strike down laws that it deemed to be against the letter and intent of the Constitution.
For much of the nation's early history, the Supreme Court did not rule on many cases deciding the constitutionality of a law. The Marbury v. Madison case also established John Marshall as one of the key founders of the judicial branch.


Marbury v. Madison (1803) was an important case because it established the principle of judicial review—that is, the right of the Supreme Court to rule whether laws passed by Congress are constitutional. This case involved a man named William Marbury, who had been appointed to a position as justice of the peace by President John Adams just as Adams was leaving office. Marbury was among the so-called "midnight appointees" who were given offices right before Adams left office. When he assumed office, President Jefferson refused to honor Marbury's commission, and Marbury sued the Secretary of State, James Madison, in response. Marbury wanted the Supreme Court to order Jefferson to give him his office.
In his decision in this case, Supreme Court Justice John Marshall ruled that Marbury was entitled to his commission. He also ruled that the Supreme Court did not have the right to give Marbury this commission, as this right did not fall under their constitutional powers. Although this decision seemed at first to detract from the power of the Supreme Court, it actually enhanced the court's powers because they had the right to review the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.
https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/marbury.html

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137


Marbury v. Madison was significant because with its decision in the case, the Supreme Court established the principle of judicial review. The case stemmed from newly-elected President Thomas Jefferson's refusal to allow his Secretary of State James Madison to deliver commissions for a number of lower-level judicial appointments made by outgoing President John Adams. One of the appointees, William Marbury, challenged Jefferson, claiming that the Judiciary Act empowered (required, even) the Supreme Court to issue a legal writ called a mandamus that would force the President and his Secretary to deliver up the commissions. The Supreme Court, headed by Jefferson's political adversary John Marshall, ruled that this part of the Judiciary Act was in fact unconstitutional. The case was very complex, and not in and of itself all that consequential, but the precedent established by Marshall--that the Court might rule a law passed by Congress unconstitutional--was a very significant one. Though the Court would not exercise judicial review for several decades, the principle of judicial review would over time become a pillar of the system of checks and balances in the U.S. Constitution. It was also one of several landmark decisions issued by the Court under Marshall, whose vision of a robust federal government would prove very influential.
https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/marbury-v-madison-video

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How does Bilbo show leadership and courage in The Hobbit?

Bilbo’s increase in confidence and courage is the defining aspect of his character arc. At the beginning of the novel, he is shut away content in his Hobbit hole, happy to remain separate and coddled from the rest of the world. In the movie, Bilbo chooses to join the dwarves on their quest out of a sense for adventure. In the book, however, Bilbo wants nothing to do with them and only joins because he had been duped into signing a contract. Despite being on the adventure somewhat against his will, Bilbo still proves himself time and again, saving the dwarves from the spiders, the trolls, and a number of other dangers they encounter along the way. Bilbo’s character arc has even been cited as a sort of Christian metaphor for the growth of the soul, though how much Tolkien intended on this front is up for debate. From a thematic standpoint, the ring of invisibility also plays into Bilbo’s brand of bravery. If Hobbits are the overlooked creatures of Middle Earth, then it is noteworthy that...
Read more

In “Goodbye to All That,” Joan Didion writes that the “lesson” of her story is that “it is distinctly possible to remain too long at the fair.” What does she mean? How does the final section of the essay portray how she came to this understanding, her feelings about it, and the consequences of it?

In this classic essay, Didion describes moving to New York City from her native Sacramento at the age of twenty-one, and, as she freely admits, a somewhat naive twenty-one, her mind, "programmed by all the movies I had ever seen and all the songs I had ever heard about New York," with the typical feeling, at that age, that, "nothing like this...has ever happened to anyone before." Intending to stay for only six months, she falls in love with the city. As she says, "I do not mean 'love' in any colloquial way, I mean that I was in love with the city the way you love the first person who ever touches you and never love anyone quite that way again." This initial love led her to prolong her residency, since, "I still believed in possibilities then, still had the sense, so peculiar to New York, that something extraordinary would happen any minute, any day, any month." But as the next years roll past, and the "new faces" she encounters...
Read more

Why does the poet say "all the men and women merely players"?

It's one of the most famous lines in literature: All the world's a stage,And all the men and women merely players . . . This famous saying comes from Shakespeare's play As You Like It, and it's spoken by Jacques. What he's saying here is that simply going about our daily lives is a type of performance. Just like actors on a stage, we all have roles to perform: Daughter. Student. Sister. Captain of the soccer team. The fact that Shakespeare writes that men and women are merely players suggests that the roles are preordained and that a person's choice in being a mother, for example, or a doctor or starting point guard for the Brooklyn Nets is out of their hands. What roles a person performs over the course of their lifetime is up to fate. The notion that "all the world's a stage" has entered pop culture, but within the context of the play, this idea does not sit well with Jacques. He's a pessimist, and the idea that everything is up to fate makes...
Read more