The Supreme Courts Power of Judicial Review Was Established in the Case of

Judicial Review

The Issue:  Does the Constitution Give the Supreme Court the Power to Invalidate the
Actions of Other Branches of Government?

Introduction
In 1800 the Federalists and their candidate, President John Adams, lost the ballot to Thomas Jefferson.  Early on in 1801 the lame-duck Federalist Congress enacted a controversial Judiciary Human action that created 58 new judgeships, including 42 justiceships of the peace, for Adams to appoint.  Jefferson complained that the Federalists "have retired into the judiciary as a stronghold."  On the nighttime March 3, 1801, John Marshall, acting as secretarial assistant of land, affixed the official seal to the commissions for the justices of the peace.  He did not, however, deliver the commissions.  The next day, after Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated, he directed the new secretary of state, James Madison, to withhold delivery of 17 of the 42 commissions, including that of William Marbury.  William Marbury sued for a writ of mandamus to require Madison to paw over his commission.
William Marbury The conclusion in Marbury's case, written past Chief Justice John Marshall (the very same John Marshall who affixed the seal to Marbury'southward commission--talk nigh a conflict of interest!) established and justified the power of judicial review.  It is the first example read past virtually every outset-yr police force student and is generally considered the greatest of all landmark cases.  Marshall strained to reach his result.  The plain words of Section 13 of the Judiciary Act indicate that Marbury went to the wrong courtroom or invoked the wrong statute (or both), but Marshall proceeded as if the adjust were authorized by Section thirteen and and then declared the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that it purported to aggrandize the Court's original jurisdiction in violation of Article Three.  Marbury's adjust was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  Marshall's decision--brilliant in its formulation--immune the Court to brand Jefferson a violator of civil rights without issuing an order that the President could have ignored.

Case
Marbury vs. Madison (1803)

Fragment from John Marshall's Handwritten Decision

Questions

1. Is judicial review a good idea? Should ix unelected judges be able to tell our elected representatives what they tin can and cannot do?
2. Are courts more likely to block an enlightened consensus with their adherence to outdated principles or to protect the politically weak from oppressive majorities?
three.  Are judges, protected with lifetime tenure and drawn generally from the educated class, more likely to exist reflective and in a higher place the passing enthusiasms that bulldoze legislative activity?
iv.  Does Marbury mean that legislators or members of the executive branch have no responsibleness to approximate the constitutionality of their own actions?
5.  Could nosotros take a workable system of government without judicial review?

"The prime and most necessary part of the Courtroom has been that of validation, not that of invalidation.  What a government of limited powers needs, at the showtime and forever, is some ways of satisfying the people that it has taken all steps humanly possible to stay within its powers."

--Professor Charles L. Black

Links
Marbury v. Madison Background & Players
(James Madison Univ.)

Judicial Review (Wikipedia) 1800-1809 American Events Timeline

John Marshall - Definer of a Nation

1803 Petition, Debate & Vote of Wm. Marbury & Others
(from Annals of Congress)

Pitching quoits

Q uoits, Anyone?: The Personality Differences of John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson "[John Marshall] was proud of his skills in pitching quoits--a game involving a kind of round horseshoe--and could be observed at the Quoits Social club in Richmond toward the cease of his life downing Madeira and rum  punch, getting down on his hands and knees earnestly measuring the altitude between his quoit and those of his opponents, and so shouting in unaffected happiness when he won.  It is hard to imagine the withdrawn and aristocratic Jefferson in a similar posture." --Jeffrey Rosen, The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America (2006).

Chief Justice John Marshall

The Judiciary Human activity  (Department thirteen):

     The act to establish the judicial courts of the United States authorizes the supreme courtroom "to issue writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of police, to any courts appointed, or persons holding function, under the say-so of the Us."

Commodity 3 of Constitution
Department. 2

     The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Disinterestedness, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the The states, and Treaties made, or which shall exist made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the The states shall be a Party;--to Controversies between ii or more States;--between a Land and Citizens of another State;--betwixt Citizens of different States; --between Citizens of the same State challenge Lands under Grants of different States, and betwixt a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

      In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Political party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Police force and Fact, with such Exceptions, and nether such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Original Intent & Judicial Review

The Constitution does not expressly provide for judicial review.  What should be fabricated of this fact?  Does it suggest that the framers did non intend to give the courts such a power?  Not necessarily, although that is one caption for its absence.  It is also possible that the framers idea the power of judicial review was sufficiently clear from the construction of government that information technology need not exist expressly stated.  A 3rd possibility is that the framers didn't think that the issue would ever come up, considering Congress would never laissez passer legislation outside of its enumerated powers.

Only 11 of the 55 delegates to the Ramble Convention, according to Madison's notes, expressed an opinion on the desirability of judicial review.  Of those that did so, nine generally supported the thought and 2 opposed. 1 consul, James Wilson, argued that the courts should have the even broader power to strike downward whatsoever unjust federal or land legislation.  It may as well be worth noting that over one-half of the 13 original states gave their own judges some power of judicial review.

Footnote: The Flying Fish Case Two Views on Seizures John Adams T. Jefferson Vice President Thomas Jefferson opposed the 1799 order of President  Adams assuasive the seizing of ships.

Many people know the first  Supreme Courtroom decision to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional (Information technology'south Marbury, of course), but few people could identify the Court'southward get-go decision declaring Executive Branch action to exist unconstitutional. Footling v Barreme (1804), called the Flying Fish case, involved an order by President John Adams, issued in 1799 during our brief war with France,  authorizing the Navy to seize ships spring for French ports.  The president'southward gild was inconsistent with an act of Congress declaring the regime to have no such authorization.  After a Navy Helm in December 1799 seized the Danish vessel, the Flying Fish, pursuant to Adams'south club , the owners of the ship sued the captain for trespass in U. Southward. maritime court.  On appeal, C. J. Marshall rejected the captain's argument that he could non exist sued considering he was just following presidential orders.  The Court noted that commanders "act at their own peril" when they obey invalid orders--and the president's order was outside of his powers, given the congressional action.

blackandishmes.blogspot.com

Source: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/judicialrev.htm

Share this post