Con Law I- Walthall Main

Con Law I- Walthall Main - Constitutional Law I Professor...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1 Constitutional Law I Professor Walthall American Constitutional Law: Powers and Liberties I. The Role of the Courts in Constitutional Interpretation A. Judicial Review and Constitutional Structure i. The Origins and Theory of Judicial Review 1. Marbury v. Madison : The Establishment of Judicial Review Facts Marbury and others were appointed justices of the peace for the District of Columbia by President Adams and confirmed by the Senate on Adam’s last day in office. Their formal commissions were signed, but not delivered. Madison, as Secretary of State, was directed by the new President (Jefferson) to withhold Marbury’s commission. Marbury brought a writ of mandamus directly to the Supreme Court under the Judiciary Act of 1789, which established United States courts and authorized the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus to public officers. Writ of mandamus – order to a public official to carry out his duty, while not apply if a pubic official has wide discretion in carrying out duties. Only will occur under a limited duty. Issues 1. Does Marbury have a right to the commission? 2. Did Marbury have a judicially enforceable remedy? 3. Can an application for a writ of mandamus directly to the U.S. Supreme court be granted? Issue1 Yes. Marshall decided that Marbury and the other justices did indeed become entitled to their commissions once these had been signed by the President and sealed by the secretary of state. Marshall could have short-circuited the whole problem by ruling that delivering was required for validity, but he did not take this route. Issue 2 Marshall had to decide whether Madison’s failure to deliver the commissions entitled the plaintiffs to some sort of remedy. Marshall distinguished between political acts, which are not reviewable by the courts, and acts specifically required by law, which are reviewable by the courts. The court found that this was an act required by law, which is reviewable by the court. p. (9-10) The constitution does not have a provision stating that for every injury to persons, there is a right to a remedy. Marshall specifically cited to Blackstone and Magna Carta. Issue 3 A. Judiciary Act Allows : The then effective Judiciary Act provided that the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction “to issue . . .writs of mandamus . . .[to] persons holding office under the authority of the United States.” Thus, the act itself explicitly authorized the relief being sought by the plaintiffs. B. At odds with the Constituti on: However, Marshall concluded, this grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction only in “all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party.” Since issuance of mandamus is not among the types of cases as to which original jurisdiction is conferred on the Supreme Court, Marshall held, the congressional statute was at odds with Constitution. C.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 06/15/2009 for the course LAW 577 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '08 term at Arizona.

Page1 / 45

Con Law I- Walthall Main - Constitutional Law I Professor...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online