Constitutional Politics Case Briefs

Constitutional Politics Case Briefs - o o o o o o o Marbury...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
o Constitutional Politics Case Briefs o Marbury vs. Madison o Facts: o Federalist congress passed Organic Act of 1801, allowing Adams to appoint 42 justices of the peace for DC o In the last days of office, Adams’ sec. of state, Marshall, failed to deliver commissions (some) o When Madison came into Presidency, he didn’t deliver 5 commissions o Marbury didn’t receive commission and asked Supreme Court to issue writ of mandamus ordering Madison to deliver commission (1789 Judiciary Act gave the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus) o Marbury’s arguments: o Appointment by President becomes complete when the commission is signed and sealed o Congress can confer original jurisdiction in cases other than those in Const. o OOTC, Marshall o 3 main questions Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands? Commission is NOT necessarily the appointment, though conclusive evidence of it Assumes that commission is appointment itself “when a commission has been signed by the President, the appointment is made; and that the commission is complete, when the seal of the United State has been affixed to it by the Secretary of State” 68 “Mr. Marbury…was appointed” If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of this country afford him a remedy? Marbury having the “legal title to the office, he has a consequent right to the commission; a refusal to deliver, which, is a pain violation of that right, for which the laws of his country afford him a remedy” 69 If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court?
Background image of page 1

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
“to enable this court to issue a mandamus, it must be shewn to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction” 70 Law authorizing court to issue writ of mandamus to public officers “appears not to be warranted by the constitution” “a law repugnant to the constitution is void” 71 The rule must be discharged o Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee o Facts: o Case Fairfax’s Devisee v. Hunter’s Lesee appealed to US supreme Court, Court held that the VA statute was unconstitutional because it conflicted with 1783 Treaty of Paris and ordered VA Supreme Court to carry out ruling o VA Court declined to follow order and struck down sect. 25 of judiciary act as unconstitutional o Case appealed to US supreme Court as to whether Supreme Court could expand their appellate jurisdiction o Martin’s Arguments: o Judicial power extends to this class of cases &State judiciaries are incompetent to pronounce what is the law o Hunter’s: o U.S. Supreme Court can only review decisions of the lower federal courts o OOTC, J. Story o Constitution deals in general language leaving to the legislature to adopt its own means to effectuate legitimate objects and to mold and model the exercise of powers o Supreme court has appellate jurisdiction in all cases where it has not original jurisdiction
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 21

Constitutional Politics Case Briefs - o o o o o o o Marbury...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

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