100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 4 out of 7 pages.
RUNNING HEADER: Case Study 1: Marbury v. MadisonCase Study 1:Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)Melissa CarrollStrayer University LEG4204/13/16
Page | 2Marbury V. MadisonMarbury V. Madison is termed as the most significant event in the United States SupremeCourt history. The case established the grounds for judicial review in the United States using the provisions of Article III. The final decision also defined the boundaries within which the judicial and executive branches of the government operate. This made the judiciary an independent arm of the government at par with congress and the executive.During the presidential elections of 1800, Thomas Jefferson, a democratic republican, won and became the third President of the United States but he was not in power until March 4, 1801. During this interim period, the outgoing president Adams still controlled a lame-duck government together with the sixth congress. It was also during this period that the congress approved the Judiciary Act of 1801 as a modification to the Judiciary Act of 1789. Adams chose numerous justices whose commissions were signed by the president, approved by the senate, andhad the government’s official seal. For the commissions to be effective, they had to be delivered to the appointees, a task that fell on James Madison. Some of the appointed judges never received their commissions and when President Jefferson got into office on March 5, he asked James Madison, the then Secretary of State, to withhold delivery of the remaining commissions. William Marbury was among the appointed judges who never got their commissions. He then filed a case in the Supreme Court for a legal order to demand that Madison give the reason why he never delivered the commissions, as was his responsibility.When making a final decision on the issue, Chief Justice Marshall had to consider three controversial problems. First, according to the constitution, was Marbury entitled to the commission he claimed? Second, was it constitutional for the court to issue such an order? Third, did the Supreme Court have the authority to grant such a writ in this case? In answering the first question, Judge Marshall determined that Marbury got his appointment in accordance with the
Page | 3Marbury V. Madisonconstitution and he therefore, should have received the commission (Madison 1800). Secondly,