Marbury v. Madison
Last week I picked up a copy of the late William Rehnquistââ¬â¢s book ââ¬ÅThe Supreme Courtââ¬Â (0-375-70861-8). I havenââ¬â¢t made it too far into the book yet, but so far it has been quite enjoyable. It has been written for the ââ¬Åinformed laypersonââ¬Â and the lawyer alike, so most of the legalese has been removed. Anyway, since I purchased the book to get a better idea of what the Supreme Court does, I thought Iââ¬â¢d use my newly created blog as a place to recap some of the parts that I found quite interesting.
The first case the book focuses on is that of Marbury vs. Madison. The wikisource entry is quite extensive, and gives the full text of the opinion as written by Chief Justice Marshall. I donââ¬â¢t know about you, but I remembered hearing about this case in junior high, and again in high school, however I couldnââ¬â¢t have told you who Marbury and Madison were, let alone what the significance of the case was!
As is turns out, William Marbury (wikipedia has nothing about him!) was a guy who had been tapped to be the Justice of the Piece for the District of Columbia. He was a member of the Federalist Party and had been appointed on the last day of former president John Adamsââ¬â¢s term. Adamââ¬â¢s was appointing all these judicial officers in order to fill seats created by the Judiciary Act of 1801 ââ¬â which was passed by a Federalist controlled Congress. On noon of day Adamââ¬â¢s made the appointments, Thomas Jefferson took office. Jefferson was a member of the Republican Party, and at the time there was quite a bit of battling going on between the two parties. Jefferson told his newly appointed Secretary of State, James Madison, to not commission over half of the late-appointed judges, who were known as the ââ¬Åmidnight judgesââ¬Â by the Republican Party.
This is where the problems began. Marbury thought that he should be given his commission, since he had been appointed by the president. He wanted a writ of mandamus delivered from the Supreme Court to Madison. A writ of mandamus, in a nutshell, is a writ (a formal written order from a public body), that literally means ââ¬Åwe orderââ¬Â in latin. Now, while that may sound redundantââ¬Â¦well, okay, it is kinda redundant. Itââ¬â¢s one of those things that got carried over on the ships from England that we decided made since, for whatever reason. Anyway, Marbury wanted the Supreme Court to order Madison to give him his commission. He based this request, and what appears to be his entire case, on the Judiciary act of 1789, which states:
Sec. 13. ââ¬Â¦The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states in the cases hereinafter specially provided for and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principle and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office under the authority of the United States
According to this act, passed by the first Congress of the United States, signed by George Washington no less, Marbury saw that the Supreme Court could deliver a writ of mandamus to Madison ââ¬â who was a person holding office. Everything seems to be in favor of Marbury, after all the law says the Supreme Court can deliver these writs, right?
In his opinion, Justice Marshall agreed that under the Judiciary act of 1789, Marbury had the right to ask the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus to Madison. However, and this is where the beauty of this landmark case comes in, the court decided that this section of the Judiciary act of 1789 was unconstitutional and there fore could not be enforced! The court based its opinion on a reference to a document, which at the time was the only document which preceded the Judiciary Act of 1789 that defined the role of the Supreme Court: the Constitution.
In Article III Section 2 Paragraph 2 of the Constition of the United States:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Essentially, the Constitution grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction – or the ability to hear a case for the first time – to matters dealing with Ambassadors and cases where a State in the Union is taking part. In all other matters, the supreme court is only granted appellate jurisdiction – or the ability to hear a case based on an appeal, where a trial has already been held. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gives the court the additional ability to hear a case involving a writ of mandamus as original jurisdiction.
It was the opinion of the court, that the Constitution, which was ratified by all of the states in the union, should be held to a higher authority than a piece of legislation which was passed by a single branch of the government. If it were not, then the Constitution could have set up the Courts in one way, and by legislation, the other branches of government could drasticly change the way in which the whole government was set up to begin with! The system of checks and balances put in place by the founding fathers would have been null and void!
So, the court, in a unanimous opinion denied Marbury the writ of mandamus to Madison, not because the law said that he was not entitled to it, but because the law that entitled him to ask the court for was was unconsitutional. The implications at the time had more to do with politcal party affiliations than with the setting of such an important precedent, but that’s for another discussion!
Rehnquist gives much more elegant examples, giving quotes from the opinions which reinforce the points presented much better than I ever could – but you’re going to have to go get the book to read those!
It’s times like these that I remind myself that I shouldn’t read law history at night. Interestingly enough, I actually did remember the original case and the specifics of why it was such a landmark case (go scholastic bowl of double ott!). I do think that it is rather interesting that you picked this book up at this time. You said the same thing that I’ve heard many people say, “I’ve learned more about the supreme court…” To me, that’s really disheartening to think that many American’s don’t have a well founded understanding of how our government works. Now I’m not saying you don’t, but if you consider that roughly 40% of the population votes, and of that 40%, there is about 25% that understand how the system works, that would mean that there are a lot of dumb people out there voting; however, that really has nothing much to do with the supreme court because we don’t get to vote for them anyway, just the schmucks who pick them.
A lot of what I learned was not summarized here – I kinda want to see how popular some of these pages might become
Rehnquist’s book looks at this case, and I’m sure later ones, from the perspective of what the country looked like at the time, and the forces behind some of the decisions. Like I said, the precedent that was created in this case about the Supreme Court being able to deem legislative acts unconstitutionall was not news as much as was the people involved in the case. Its really quite interesting, and that is what I was referring to as learning more about myself.
To your point – I agree completely! I think there is a HUGE part of society that simply expects the government to do something for them when they want it – take the recent events in New Orleans. I heard several interviews after the fact of people who were waiting for money for FEMA before they went out to find a job. To me that makes absolutely no sense at all! People have no clue how are government works, and then when it doesn’t react the way they want it to, they cry foul and say the system is flawed. I think some people just need to get off their rear-ends, realize that the government was not set up to cater to their wants, but to their needs (such as helping them find jobs, and well, setting up FEMA at all). Not that I think everything is handled correctly in the government all the time, but to your point, if people knew more about the system, I think the expectations would be more in line with reality. And most people are just lazy in America anymore, and aren’t willing to do things for themselves.
Okay, enough political commentary on society before coffee….