The facts relating to Marbury were rather complex. During the elections of the year 1800, the organized Democratic-Republican Party led by Thomas Jefferson consequently defeated John Adams’ Federalist Party as it created a conclusive atmosphere of general political panic due to the overall aspects of lame duck Federalists. Within his final days of presidency, Adams made a number of appointments with a large number of justices for peace within the District of Columbia. Their commissions were eventually approved by the Senate as they were signed by the sitting president and later affixed with the government’s official seal. However, the commissions were not actually put in place. Later, when President Jefferson took up office on 5th March 1801, he instructed James Madison (the Secretary of State) not to enact them. One of the appointees, William Marbury consequently petitioned the overall Supreme Court for a legal order or writ of mandamus which compelled Madison into showing the cause as to why he was not able to receive his commission. In solving this case, Chief Justice Marshall responded to all the questions raised (Hall, 99)
. First, the issue of Marbury having the right to the writ through which he had petitioned. Later, there was the issue of whether or not the provisions and laws of the overall United States provide the courts with opportunities such a writ to grant Marbury. The third consideration was if the right was legally provided, could the Supreme Court instruct for its enactment. With respect to the first issue, Marshall maintained that Marbury was properly appointed according to the procedures established by the governing law (Lively & Weaver, 26). Therefore, he had a specific right to handle the writ. On the other hand, the fact that Marbury developed legal rights to the commission, the law needed to afford him specific remedies. The Chief Justice also went on to add that it was part of the specific responsibilities of the courts to fully protect the individuals’ rights especially against the general roles of the United States (Hartman, Mersky & Tate, 29). On the other hand, Marshall's was thinly disguised by the lecture to President Jefferson concerning the rule of law which more controversial as compared to his statement in terms of the judicial review that doctrine was broadly accepted.
Marbury v. Madison (1803) became the first Supreme Court case through which Court was able to exercise the judicial review power. In this case, William Marbury was a last-minute appointment to the judiciary by President John Adams towards the end of his term. He sued James Madison under the new administration who did not uphold the appointment. The grounds for the lawsuit by Marbury’s were based on the Judiciary Act of 1789 (Lively & Weaver, 26). The provision observed that anyone who was not properly appointed could consequently request a respectable court order towards obtaining due appointment through which the Supreme Court needed original jurisdiction for such types of cases. John Marshall, the Chief Justice, ruled that the Supreme Court was not an appropriate place of addressing Marbury’s case due to the fact that the Constitution had not granted the Supreme Court the powers of ‘original jurisdiction’ within this area. Therefore, the overall provisions of the Judiciary Act of the year 1789 drastically violated the Constitution which made this agreement void.
The logic used by Chief Justice Marshall logic was that due to the fact that the Constitution was the highest and most acceptable law of the land which was established by people, there was no sole entity which expected the courts to follow using these laws which needed further documentation (that is, Congress). This was precautionary just in case there was need to make other laws which were conflicting with it. Based on the Marbury decision, the technique of the Court took on the various authorities used in declaring acts of Congress unconstitutional in the event that those acts drastically exceeded the powers which were granted by the overall Constitution (Hall, 99). However, perhaps more importantly, the Court needed to establish itself as one of the arbiters of the Constitution which was a role that it had taken ever since. This is particularly due to the sole roles which the Court was in a position of greatly expanding its people’s civil liberties across the twentieth century.
As seen, the story of Marbury embraces very important lessons. The first one is that, in the progression of the disagreement on issues of the Supreme Court's conclusions for various and particular cases, there are sometimes that individuals forget the meaning of fully appreciating the American system’s genius in terms of an independent judiciary whose last word in terms of the law as well as the Constitution are addressed. As citizens continue hearing on the attempts of demonizing judges as well as justices that they disagree, there is need to remember the shared commitment for the rule of law. As most retired justices emphasize, the country’s heritage needs to particularly inspire us towards fighting various attacks which are on the grounds of independent judiciaries. Whether or not they are able to come across facts, decision making needs to be a well researched and conclusive procedure. Relevantly, the Marbury saga also contains distinct and valuable cautionary facts (Lively & Weaver, 26). Its greatness is strategically based on the fact that Marshall headed the court towards rising above an element of being in a position of predictable political players. Most stakeholders expected Marshall to particularly give various Federalists the resultant aspects that they desired fervently.
These were orders which compelled the appointment of various Federalists such as Marbury. On the other hand, Marshall took up the court in a more politically dynamic environment. For victorious Democrats in Congress and President Obama, Marbury serves as a reminder that irrespective of the fact that one is in the political majority, it does not necessarily mean that they are above the law and being on history’s wrong side based on the fundamental judicial points. For the besieged congressional Republicans, provisions of the history that the embattled Federalists bear are similarly instructive even as the Federalists' positions become rather unyielding opponents for the Jefferson's administration which led to a diverse extinction in which the political party strategically developed. Lastly, Marbury observes that that the greatness of this will arise from various aspects of the messiest aspects of political circumstances (Hartman, Mersky & Tate, 29). With regards to the patchy and half-built Washington in the early 1800s and considering the unproven courts which Marshall inherited, nothing appears to be more unlikely. This is in comparison with the era which would forge such a landmark in law as well as justice that could be a major inspiration to the world much later. The unlikely story of Marbury v. Madison provides hope through which the chaos as well as uncertainty of the daily struggles can be similarly yielding to unknown breakthroughs which will endure for the ages.
This historic court case is majorly responsible for establishing the concept of Judicial Review which is also defined as the Judiciary Branch’s ability to declare laws unconstitutional. This case particularly brought the Judiciary arm of the government on a power basis with the Executive and Legislative Branches (Lively & Weaver, 26). This means that all Founding Fathers were expected to develop the branches of government towards acting as checks and balances to each other. The court case in this instance (Marbury v. Madison) accomplished this as it set the precedent for various historic decisions for the country’s future. In having to declare that the Supreme Court needed the final authorization on law within the U.S., the precedent was set for a judiciary which would be turned into a strong and centralized institution at the expense of the people and states therein. The issue of ‘Judicial review’ was more of a concept which was neither documented nor endorsed by the founders within the Constitution. This consequently and effectively gave all unelected bureaucrats powers of striking down laws which were previously passed by representatives of the people (DeVillers, 98). Such aspects continued to empower the Supreme Court in declaring of the citizens null and void. Currently, it is generally acceptable that the Supreme Court develops the right of striking down state and federal laws while at the same time setting public policy through virtual establishment of laws that were based on the various constitutional interpretations. On the other hand, the Court was initially intended to be a concrete advisory body to the president and Congress. Additionally, the concept of judicial review by Marshall’s focused on dealing with significant blows to the federalist ideology of government as it upset the balance of power.
Works Cited
DeVillers D., (1998) Marbury Vs. Madison: Powers of the Supreme Court. New York: Enslow. Pp 98. Print
Hall K., (1999) The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions. London: Oxford University Press. Pp 99. Print
Hartman G., Mersky R., Tate C., (2009) Landmark Supreme Court Cases: The Most Influential Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Infobase Publishing. Pp 29. Print
Lively D., Weaver R., (2006) Contemporary Supreme Court Cases: Landmark Decisions Since Roe V. Wade. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group. Pp 26. Print
