LawSo 112 Notes

LawSo 112 Notes - 1/10/09 The Federalists and the...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1/10/09 The Federalists and the Republicans Marbury v. Madison: Wonderful example of both legal formalism and legal realism. Battle between Federalists and Republicans went beyond idealogical differences. Alien and Sedition Acts Greatest example of breach of first-amendment protections in the Constitution Passed in response to anti-French sentiment after the XYZ Affair Congress passed laws to combat the “alien” French and their “seditious” American supporters Republican witch hunt Three French men that asked that the US delegates loan them $10M and bribe them with $1M were called “X”, “Y”, and “Z” on the bill given to congress. Federalist emphasis on the government; Federalist president and congress Basically stated that if you said anything negative towards the Federalists, you could be prosecuted. Prosecutions were run in an extremely unfair manner. In the election of 1800, Federalists lost control in both houses of congress and the presidency. Still had control of the judiciary, but that was the weakest area of government at the time. The Judiciary Act of 1801 and Court Packing Reduced the Supreme Court from six to five members
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Created 26 new posts in the federal district and circuit courts along with 45 positions as “justice of the peace” Rush to choose and confirm new judges by March 4 th deadline when Jefferson would take over. Many of the commissions were not delivered (including Marbury’s). Marbury took the issue directly to the Supreme Court. Marbury v. Madison (1803): Three Questions in Case 1. Was Marbury entitled to his commission? 2. Did the law provide a remedy for Madison’s refusal to deliver Marbury’s commission? 3. Is issuing the mandamus the proper remedy? The Writ of Madamus This writ empowers judges to order officials to carry out their duties Forcing the offending official to move his hand Marbury didn’t even hire a lawyer to represent him. Marshall’s Response 1. Yes, he is entitled to his commission. 2. Yes, there is a remedy that the law provides (otherwise there would be no point in having the law in the first place). 3. Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorizes the Supreme Court to offer writs of Mandamus to those holding positions in the government of the United States. The legal reasoning in Marbury v. Madison The right to issue the writ was granted by Congress in Judiciary Act of 1789. Article III of the Constitution
Background image of page 2
Marbury filed his suit in the Supreme Court Marshall’s Conclusion: The Judiciary Act of 1789 has to be Constitutional. Congress can’t expand what the Constitution allows. Why is this decision important? Marshall was worried that another decision could cause a Constitutional
Background image of page 3

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/07/2008 for the course LAWSO 112 taught by Professor Foreman during the Winter '08 term at UCSB.

Page1 / 19

LawSo 112 Notes - 1/10/09 The Federalists and the...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

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