1. Marbury v. Madison
Marbury v. Madison was a significant case in the history of the United States. It was an important case because the Supreme Court affirmed its position as the only state organ charged with the responsibility of reviewing decisions made by the executive and the judiciary. The judgement was delivered by Chief Justice John Marshal in 1803.The case had a vital role in ensuring that the Judiciary was a respected arm of government, just as the legislature and the executive.
William Marbury was voted and declared as the peace justice of the country’s capital at the end of President John Adam’s government. John Marshall was the country’s Secretary of State, and he had the mandate to deliver commission appointees. Unfortunately, Marshall did not do so to all the new commissions. It is good to remember that President John Adams had lost in a terribly contested 1800 election, paving the way for Thomas Jefferson as the new president. James Madison was the Secretary of State that time, and he inherited the remaining correspondence from his forerunner, as well as Marbury's commission. Jefferson believed that the committees were not acceptable until the necessary paperwork was signed, sealed and delivered. He ordered Madison to postpone sending any remaining commission until the authorities had agreed upon on the processions.
That forced Marbury to sue Madison to seek the commission’s delivery. John Marshall, now acting as the Chief Justice, rebuked Madison for failing to deliver a legal commission, although he defended himself by declaring that the court lacked a proper jurisdiction to handle the case. Therefore, Marbury did not make a follow up on the issue until his office term came to an end.
The case brings to fore a number of issues. For instance, it paints the picture of Johan Marshall as an opportunist. This is because, despite the high position as the head of the judiciary, he was not the pioneer of the judicial review process in the judicial system of the United States. The process of the judicial review was already underway with its pioneers being the judges from the lower courts. Despite this, John Marshall ensured that his ruling in the Marbury case depicted him as the hero. He gave a very nice opinion about the whole issue, therefore, in his own capacity declaring that the judicial review process would be a great idea for the court system of the United States. The reason why this is the most important case in America is because it legitimized the capability of the Supreme Court to judge the constitutionality of acts of the President or the Congress. That ruling set a precedent that would be followed for the next two Centuries.
It was noteworthy that the only thing remaining undone (as far as the commission was concerned) was that the commissioners had not been delivered; therefore, they could not discharge any duties. Although the Chief Justice (John Marshall) noted that the actions of the Secretary of State were illegal, the court did not have the powers to grant the prayer requested by the plaintiff. Nonetheless, Marshall ruled that the court had the right to protect one's right; therefore, Marbury was mandated a remedy because he had the lawful right to his commission. He also had a right to the writ because he was elected in agreement with the law. However, granting his request was beyond the court’s power.
2. Converting Bills into Laws
A bill has to pass through both houses and get signed by President to suffice as a law. If it does not undergo all the processes, it is put aside. For it to be reintroduced, it has to follow the whole process again. The first stage is committee consideration; new bills are directed to standing commissions by topic matter. Nowadays, bills are led to the subcommittee because the number of bills that need consideration is huge. Most bills die in either the committee or subcommittee stage and are never debated. If the bill sails through this stage, hearings of various experts are established. The bill is then reviewed until its ready to be taken to the chamber.
The second one is floor debate. Distinctive rule committee indicates the time limit on discussion and guidelines for amending. Restrictions are prohibited in the changing of bill filibuster as this can lead to the death of the bill. For a bill to pass, the quorum must be present. The third stage is conference committees whereby only the crucial or complex and controversial bills pass this stage.
This commission combines two bills - one from the Senate and the other one from the house. If the assembly does not agree on the changes, members are nominated from the standing commissions that supported the bill and went with compromise. The revised bill should go to each chamber of a house and pass before getting to the President for the final signing, which then qualifies it as a law.
3. The Legislative Powers of the President
The president has the power to summon the Congress by informing the Congress occasionally. He has powers to enter into treaties with an overseas nation, but that must be approved by 2/3 of the Senate. He is the Commander in Chief of the military and has the mandate to appoint judges, ambassadors and other dignitaries who represent the nation in the foreign countries. On certain, special occasions, the president has the capability of pardoning wrongdoers, but this has to follow a certain procedure. The president uses the bully pulpit, which allows him to air his opinions. The sitting president can also use this tool for any sensible strategy by supporting a certain piece of statute. This helps the president to urge Senate heads to support his plans or blame the assembly for stalling.
4. Differences between the Different Types of Laws
Civil law deals with the conflicts between parties and groups where a victim is granted the compensation while criminal law deals with wrongdoing and lawful penalty of the criminal. Common laws on the other hand are made by law judges after making various judgements concerning particular issues. Previous cases make an important part of coming up with these laws. The constitution of the United States has various statutes and acts that deal with court cases. Every court has to make its judgement according to the clauses of the Constitution.
Many ask whether cases associated with any of these types of laws are likely to get heard before the US Supreme Court. The answer is that they are usually heard, especially the critical cases. However, minor issues can be handled adequately by state courts. Any party that is not satisfied with the ruling issued at the state level can then ask for a review of the ruling at the federal level.
Regarding the question on whether the U.S Constitution may determine whether or not a case gets heard before the Court, not all cases are heard by the U.S Supreme Court. For a case to be heard by the U.S Supreme Court, it should abide by the constitutional regulations. That means that the case should cover aspects that touch on federal law. Cases involving matters that are handled exclusively by the state law or participants in a state will possibly stay in the state court structure. Such cases can only go the Supreme Court during the review process, and if the court has the authority to hear the case.
Works Cited
"Social Text". (2009). Social Text, 27(3 100), 230-230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/01642472- 2009-045.
Pbs.org,. "The Supreme Court. The Court and Democracy. Landmark Cases. Marbury V.
Madison (1803) | PBS". Pbs.org. N.p., 2016. Web. 4 May 2016.
Ushistory.org. (2016). How a Bill Becomes a Law [ushistory.org]. Ushistory.org. Retrieved 30 April 2016, from http://www.ushistory.org/gov/6e.asp
