Judgment in the case of Marbury v. Madison, often referred to as the most important in the history of the United States Supreme Court, has put into practice the principle of judicial review and the authority of the Supreme Court to recognize the constitutionality of both legislative and executive acts.
This case arose as a result of the political dispute that broke out after the presidential elections in 1800, when Democratic Republican Thomas Jefferson defeated the president of that time Federalist John Adams. In the final days of his being in office of the administration of Adams, Congress, in which federalists dominated, has established some judicial positions, among these positions there were 42 justices of the peace in the District of Columbia. The Senate approved the appointments, and the State Secretary was obliged to seal documents on the above appointments and formally present them to the designated persons. However, being in the last days of the office, the current Secretary has forgotten to hand over documents on the appointment to four justices of the peace, including William Marbury (Nelson, 2000).
Thomas Jefferson officially became president of the United States the next day, March 4, and ordered his State Secretary, James Madison, not to deliver the remaining orders on the appointment, hoping that due to a delay in delivery, they may lose their strength. Marbury and several other federals, who had not received documentary evidence of the appointment of judges, filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the United States, citing their Writ of mandamus, which is the court order to an official or other person to take actions that they obliged under the law. Under the Law on the Judiciary of 1789, the Supreme Court was authorized to bind the federal officials to fulfill the rights of the plaintiff on the Mandamus. Thus, referring to this right, Marbury was hoping to make James Madison to deliver the remaining orders of appointment to the federals. A curious in this story was the point that it was Chief Justice John Marshall, who was to hear the case, was to blame for the fact that orders of the appointment did not reach Marbury and several other federals (Nelson, 2000).
John Marshall, who is known as the greatest Chief Judge of all, who have held this position, managed to make quite a wise decision on the background of a very tense political atmosphere. Marshall didn’t want to cause direct conflict with Jefferson, Madison, and the anti-federalists in general, knowing that if he ordered them to deliver the remaining orders of appointment they could simply refuse to comply with its ruling (Randolph, 2004).
At that time, the US Supreme Court had almost no authority to compel other branches of government to execute its judgment. In an attempt to strike a balance in the state system and determine who should interpret the Constitution, Justice Marshall for the first time revealed the essence of judicial control and set its principles. This innovation gave the Supreme Court the last word in matters of meaning and scope of the laws prescribed in the Constitution. "The interpretation of the law - is the prerogative and duty of the judiciary" - these were words of the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States John Marshall that determined its decision in the case of Marbury and were the basis for the acquisition of the Supreme Court of the right to judicial review (Nelson, 2000).
Marshall's decision was divided into five parts. In the first part there was said that Marbury was justified to take office of the peace justice. In the second part Marshall admitted that Madison had violated the law by holding in the orders for the appointment of judges. In the third part there has been said that the right to Mandamus is the most appropriate way to ensure that the public official performed their duties assigned to him by law. The question of who can issue such an order is reflected in the fourth part of Marshall’s decision.
The fourth and fifth part of the decision in the case of Marbury, so brilliantly solved, became a cornerstone in matters of devices in the system of the US government. In the fourth part of its decision Marshall considered the question of whether the Supreme Court has the power to issue regulations to require governmental officials to fulfill the rights of the plaintiff on the Mandamus. The third article of the Constitution defines two types of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: original and appellate. Original jurisdiction implies a fact that the Court could be the original authority in certain matters, and be the first and, in fact, the only court to consider applications. Such cases were those that were directly related to the policy, such as actions affecting ambassadors, or when any of the states was a party of the dispute.
As for the other cases, the Court according to the law had appellate jurisdiction, which meant that before the application goes to the Supreme Court, it must go through many lower courts. Nevertheless, the thirteenth article of the Law on the Judiciary of 1789 included the possession of the Supreme Court with the power to issue orders that would oblige officials to fulfill what is prescribed to them by law, if the Court filed a petition with reference to the plaintiff's right to Mandamus. Although Marbury was neither an ambassador, nor even a governmental official, the Law on the Judiciary gave him the right to ensure that the Supreme Court was the first instance to consider his application (Randolph, 2004).
Marshall held that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit of Marbury, and the law (the law of the judiciary of 1789) is unconstitutional, as attributed to the Court's original jurisdiction in cases not covered by the third article of the Constitution. Thus, in response to a petition of Marbury, the Court could not issue a decree that would oblige Madison to send the remaining orders of appointment.
This solution helped Marshall avoid direct conflict with the administration of President Jefferson, but at the same time, it denied a law passed by the Congress. Marshall also noted that it would be quite absurd to oblige the courts to perform unconstitutional legislation, and that none of the acts adopted by the Congress, shall not be entitled to the embodiment of something that would be contrary to the US Constitution. Marshall’s decision of the Supreme Court established the right to the recognition of the law passed by the Congress as unconstitutional, and has become a cornerstone of American democracy.
Finally, Marshall has determined that it is the judicial branch, not the executive (represented by the President), and the legislative (the Congress), that is suitable for eligibility to cancel unconstitutional laws. Marshall, the first describing the principles of the doctrine of judicial review, said the federal courts, and above all - the Supreme Court shall have power to declare laws that contradict the Constitution null and void. This, he said, is "the very essence of judicial duty" (Randolph, 2004).
Being often called the most important in the history of the US Supreme Court, the decision in the case of Marbury defined boundaries, strength and basic principles of judicial review. Judicial review allows federal courts to consider legislation enacted by the Congress or the states, and declare them null and void if it is established that they contradict the Constitution.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court cannot annul any law only because it is unconstitutional. Such a decision may be made only if a certain lawsuit will be filed, when considering which there will the need to check this or that law on constitutionality. Furthermore, judicial review allows federal courts to check whether officials of the state apparatus (which also include the actions of the President) execute their responsibilities under the Constitution. Thus, the Court has become much more influential and important part of the American system of government.
References
Nelson, William E. (2000). Marbury v. Madison: The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review. Lawrence: Univ. Press of Kansas.
Randolph, Ryan. (2004). Marbury v. Madison: The New Supreme Court Gets More Power. New York: Rosen Pub. Group.
