 |
 |
|
|||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
   |
|||||
| Marbury vs Madison In the general elections of 1800, Federalists
lost control of both the Presidency and Congress. Hoping
to at least maintain control over the judiciary, the
outgoing Congress of 1801 passed the Judiciary Act of
1801, which expanded the number of Circuit Courts from
three to six, created sixteen new judgeships and a number
of other judicial positions, and reduced the number of
Supreme Court justices from six to five, effective upon
the next vacancy. In hearing the case, the Court was presented with three distinct issues: 1) Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?; 2) If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?; and, 3) If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court? The Court also faced a serious dilemma -- if it ruled in favor of Marbury, the ruling would likely be defied by Jefferson, but if it ruled against Marbury, it would be admitting that the Court had no power. The Court ultimately ruled against Marbury, but did so by declaring that the law under which Marbury sought his remedy was unconstitutional.
|
|||||
| THE
ROBINSON LIBRARY --> Law. --> Law of the United States. --> Specific Cases, A-Z. This page was last updated on 06/27/2011. |
|||||
On March 2, 1801, outgoing
President John Adams named 58 Federalist supporters to
judicial positions, one of whom was William Marbury, who
was appointed Justice of the Peace for the District of
Columbia. The outgoing Congress quickly confirmed all 58
appointments, and outgoing Secretary of State 
On the first issue, the Court ruled that Marbury
was indeed entitled to his commission, since that
commission had been properly signed by President Adams
and sealed by Secretary of State Madison and it could
therefore only be voided by gross misconduct on Marbury's
part. The Court further ruled that the laws of the United
States did indeed afford Marbury a remedy that would
result in his receiving his lawful commission. But, as
for the final, and to Marshall the most important, issue,
the Court ruled against Marbury by stating that Section
13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which gave the Court the
authority to issue a Writ of Mandamus in a case
for which it did not have original jurisdiction, was in
conflict with the Constitution, which does not give
Congress the authority to expand the Court's powers, was
unconstitutional. By so deciding, the Court stated that
the Constitution gives it the final authority to
determine which laws are constitutional and which are
not.
