answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

In Marbury v. Madison, (1803), The Court held that William Marbury and his co-plaintiffs had a right to their commissions, but that the Supreme Court did not have authority to issue a writ of mandamus under original (trial) jurisdiction compelling Secretary of State Madison to deliver the necessary paperwork. Marbury, et al., must first file their case in a lower court.

This decision was based on the answer to three legal questions:

  1. Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?

    The Court determined that Marbury had a right to his commission, per An Act Concerning the District of Columbia that Congress passed in 1801, as well as Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, which granted the President the right to make judicial nominations. Marbury's nomination had already been approved by the Senate, then signed an sealed by the former President, making it official.

  2. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?

    Because the answer to the first question was that Marbury was properly appointed as a justice of the peace, his legal rights had been violated when Madison withheld the paperwork necessary to assume office.

    Further, the laws of the United States afforded Marbury a remedy to this violation.

  3. If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court?

    The Supreme Court determined it did not have original jurisdiction over the case, but appellate, and therefore could not issue a writ of mandamus. Marbury had to initiate legal action against Madison in the lower federal courts before the Supreme Court could review his case.

Chief Justice Marshall held that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional because Congress attempted to grant the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus against US government officials, an authority not specifically relegated to the court in Article III of the constitution.

Marshall also declared the Judicial Branch had authority to check the power of the Executive and Legislative branches by determining whether laws or actions conform with constitutional principles.

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each."

-Chief Justice John Marshall

Case Citation:

Marbury v. Madison, 137 US 5 (1803)

User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar
More answers
User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago

John Marshall ruled that Marbury was entitled to his commission, but stated the US Supreme Court didn't have original jurisdiction over the case (could not hear the case as a trial court), and lacked authority to issue the necessary writ. Marbury was advised to refile his case in a lower court, then appeal to the Supreme Court, if necessary. This allowed both sides to feel partially vindicated.

However, the conflict in Marbury v. Madison, (1803) was much larger than whether Marbury and his co-plaintiffs were entitled to their commissions. There were two unwritten issues complicating the court's decision. The first was Marshall had to maneuver around the likelihood that Jefferson/Madison would never agree to reissue the discarded commissions, and the Supreme Court lacked any authority to enforce such an order. If they failed at extracting a commission from Jefferson/Madison, the Judicial Branch would be perceived as weak.

The second issue involved a victory for the Court itself. Jefferson's stubbornness afforded Marshall an opportunity to give the new President the narrow decision he wanted, but also delivered an embarrassing public lecture to Jefferson and Congress. It also allowed Marshall to find grounds for overturning a section of a Congressional Act as unconstitutional, supplying the Court both with the reason for not issuing the order and the opportunity to formally establish their right of judicial review.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. All laws must comply with the principles outline in that document. If there is a conflict, then either the Constitution was wrong or the Act of Congress was unconstitutional. The Constitution (which was ratified by Congress and the States) declares itself the Supreme Law, so the unconstitutional legislation had to be nullified.

Case Citation:

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

8y ago

Chief Justice John Marshall used the Constitutional process called Constitutional review to rectify a problem caused by Thomas Jefferson.

This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: How did Marshall rule in marbury vs. Madison?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

What was the name of the supreme court case of marbury vs Madison?

marbury vs. Madison


Who was the supreme court justice for the Marbury vs Madison case?

Fourth Chief Justice John Marshall presided over the Court in 1803, when the case was finally allowed to go to trial. Chief Justice Marshall authored the opinion of the Court for Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803). Marbury v. Madison is the case most often cited when discussing the origin of judicial review.For more information about Marbury v. Madison, see Related Links, below.


What precedent did Marbury vs. Madison set?

Marbury vs. Madison established the precedent of judicial review. Marbury vs. Madison was heard in 1803 before the US Supreme court.


How do you use Marbury vs. Madison in a sentence?

Marbury vs, Madison was a famous American legal case in 1803.


Marbury v. Madison was an ingenious decision because it?

Marbury vs Madison was an ingenious decision. Marbury vs Madison was the first case of judicial review that voided the act of congress.


Federalism under marshall court?

Federalism had a strong-hold under Marshall Court. John Marshall, a Federalist, was the 4th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.


What famous Marshall decision upheld the doctrine of implied powers and proclaimed national supremacy over the states?

Marbury vs madison


What aroused jeffersonian hostility to the federalist judiciary and led to the repeal of the Judiciary act of 1801?

Marshall's ruling in Marbury vs. Madison


Who said a law repugnant to the constitution is void?

Cheif Justice John Marshall in the Supreme Court case Marbury vs. Madison.


Did William Marbury of Madison Vs Marbury fame have children?

Yes.


What is marburys full name in marbury vs madison?

William Marbury


What is the big deal with Marbury vs Madison?

Marbury V Madison (1803) established the concept of judicial review. John Marshall, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the time, was a Federalist, and all his rulings strengthened the power of the federal government over that of the individual states. In Marbury V Madison, Marshall ruled that the Supreme Court had the power to declare both decisions by lower federal courts, and laws, unconstitutional.