|← Juvenile Justice in America||Double Jeopardy →|
There have been several cases by the Supreme Court that dealt with various law and constitutional concepts. As a matter of fact, the Marbury v. Madison Supreme Court Case formed the basis for judicial review in the U.S under the constitution's Article III. Apparently, this case resulted from William Marbury's Supreme Court petition following the failed delivery of his commission after being appointed as Justice of the Peace in Columbia District by President John Adams. Marbury was among the 42 federalists appointed as justice of the peace on March 3rd by President Adams before the end of his term. President Adam aimed at stymieing the incoming Republican-Democratic Congress and administration (Smith 1996, p. 524). Moreover, the individuals appointed in these positions were to serve for a term of five years, and were also given the authority to hold courts.
In relation to Smith (1996) the Senate approved the appointments but commissions had to be delivered to all appointees for the process to be effected. Although most of the commissions were delivered, it became quite impossible to deliver them all before the expiry of President Adams term (p. 524). Subsequently, after President Thomas Jefferson was sworn in he immediately ordered the new administration Attorney Levi Lincoln not to deliver the rest of the appointments. As a result, the remaining appointments were rendered void and the respective appointees were unable to assume office without the commissions.
The new Democratic-Republican Congress immediately replaced the 1801 Judiciary Act with the 1802 Judiciary Act. The latter operated in line with the original 1789 Judiciary Act and replaced the two annual Court sessions with a single session. Unluckily, William Marbury was among the appointees who didn't get their commissions, and thus presented a petition in the Supreme Court. However, Marbury's petition to the Supreme Court was aimed at forcing the State Secretary James Madison to release the documents. Consequently, the court led by John Marshall denied the petition, claiming that a portion of the 1789 Judiciary Act upon which Marbury based his claim was unconstitutional (Smith 1996, p. 525).
According to Irons (1999) the relevant laws in Marbury v. Madison Supreme Court Case include Article III, Clause 2, Section 2 of the U.S Constitution which states that "All cases involving public Consuls and Ministers, especially those which a State is a Party, the original jurisdiction will be held by the Supreme Court. Moreover, all the cases within the U.S judicial power the Supreme Court bear appellate jurisdiction as to Fact and Law, with Exceptions. The 1789 judiciary Act was also relevant in this case. Considering that Marbury filed his case directly in the Supreme Court, it was vital for the court to put into effect original jurisdiction over the case so as to gain the power to hear it (p. 104).
In accordance with Irons (1999) the Marbury v. Madison case raised a number of issues that had to be addressed by the Supreme Court since Marbury argued that in the 1789 Judiciary Act, Congress offered Supreme Court original authority over writs of mandamus petitions. The Supreme Court Had to find out whether Article III of the U.S constitution created a "floor" for original authority, which congress may include or it creates an extensive list that can not be modified by the Congress (p. 105). Moreover, the Supreme Court had to identify whether the constitution or congress wins in a case whereby the original jurisdiction of Article III is an extensive list that the Congress attempts to modify. Most importantly, the Supreme Court had to address the issue of who decides on the winner in such circumstances. In response to the last issue, the Supreme Court made formal the judicial review notion. Basically, the constitutional issue on which the case was decided was if the congress could develop the Supreme Court original jurisdiction (Irons 1999, p. 106).
On the 24th of February 1803, the Supreme Court rendered an undisputed (4-0) decision that the claimant had a right to the commission although the Supreme Court did not posses the authority to force Madison into delivering the commission. The courts opinion was written by the Chief Justice Marshall. Marshall affirmatively established that Marbury had a right to the commission and the laws of the nation gave him a legal remedy (Tushnet 2008, p. 5). As a matter of fact, Marshall realized that the failure to grant Marbury the commission violated a vested legal right. In addition, Marshall discovered that delivering the commission to Marbury was entirely ministerial function required by the vested legal right and thus the law offered him a remedy as it's required. As a result of constitutional canon avoidance where a ruling can reasonably be interpreted in order to avoid an issue that is constitutional courts basically handle the constitutional issues where only necessary. In line with Tushnet (2008) Marbury v. Madison's Supreme Court case the issue of jurisdiction was fairly constitutional. Considering that the writ of mandamus was the ideal judicial means to order a United States official such as the Secretary of State to carryout what is required of him/her like delivering a commission, Marshal devoted the rest of the inquiry to whether the writ could issue from the Supreme Court (p. 6).
On the other hand, Marshall examined the 1789 Judiciary Act and established that it purported to grant Supreme Court original authority over wits of mandamus. Consequently, Marshall scrutinized the constitution's Article III which defines the appellate and original jurisdictions of the Supreme Court (Sloan & McKean 2009, p. 4). Additionally, Marshall held the opinion that Congress did not have the authority to modify the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Thus, Marshall came to the realization that a conflict existed between the Judiciary Act and the Constitution. In relation to (Sloan & McKean 2009), Marshall argued that Acts of Congress that are not in agreement with the Constitution can not be considered as law and the courts ought to follow the constitution instead, affirming the judicial review principle.
Moreover, Marshall argued that the judicial function nature requires courts in the U.S to make this determination (p. 5). According to Marshall, courts are responsible for deciding cases and they should therefore be able to determine what law is applicable in each case. Subsequently, Marbury's request was denied because it was held by the Court that the case was deficit of jurisdiction since the Judiciary Act Section 13 passed in 1789 by the Congress, which gave authority to the Court to issue such a writ was not constitutional hence invalid. In general, William Marbury did not become a Justice of the Peace as expected in the District of Columbia (Tushnet 2008, p. 11).
In accordance with Tushnet (2008) the legal reasoning of the opinion by Marshall during the Marbury v. Madison Supreme Court case is questionable. This is because Marshall selectively quoted the 1789 Judiciary Act, interpreting it so as to grant the Court the authority to hear original jurisdiction writs of mandamus. Apparently, there is minimal connection between the Supreme Court and the original jurisdiction notion, and the Act appears to affirm the power of the court to exercise appellate jurisdiction only (p. 16). Furthermore, the initial argument was that the Supreme Court ought to have been in a position to issue the court order on original authority considering that the constitution's Article III gave it the right to review original jurisdiction. In addition, it was not appropriate for the court to take into consideration issues beyond jurisdiction. On conclusion that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction deficit in the Marbury v. Madison case, the extra review concerning the substantive issues presented was perhaps improper.