Marbury v. Madison

Question 1

The things that led to this case pt. 1

Answer 1

• Thomas-Jefferson won the 1800 election and his democratic-republican party won large majorities in congress
• before the inauguration, the old federalists in congress approved dozens of new judges and justices of the peace
• federalists have a few months to sign laws into America before they get kicked out of office
• Pres nominates, senate confirms, pres signs a commission, + commission is delivered to the new judge
  
  • commission = certificate
  • some commissions = signed late on the night before Jefferson’s inauguration
• John Adam’s secretary of state, John Marshall helped him that night
  
  • one recipient of a commission was Marshall’s brother (James)

Question 2

The things that led to this case pt. 2

Answer 2

• Some of the Signed commissions got left on a table, undelivered
  
  • Jefferson found them + ordered his secretary James Madison not to deliver them
• William Marbury a federalist party leader never received his commission to become a justice of the peace in Washington D.C.
• Marbury needed a writ of mandamus
  
  • according to the Judiciary act of 1789, the supreme court has original jurisdiction in these types of cases (some debate over this)
• The supreme court held a trial and gathered evidence
  
  • facts established when things heard in lower courts
  • in this instance = the supreme court acted like a trial court → has witness take the stand

Question 3

Holding

Answer 3

5-0 Vote, opinion by justice marshall

Question 4

Issues at Hand

Answer 4

1. has the applicant a right to the commission he demands → yes
2. if he has a right and the right has been violated do the laws of his country afford him remedy → yes
   
   • righting this wrong → having someone deliver him the commission to which he is entitled
3. If they do afford him a remedy is it a mandamus issuing from the supreme court → no
   - the court can only exercise power if the case has reached the court and they have the ability to say something → don’t have this ability shouldn’t say anything

Question 5

What is the proper way to decide this case?

Answer 5

• starting at ? 3, then ? 2, and finishing with ? 1

- politically motivated answer → going 1-3 → Highlighting injustice that marshall is enduring

Question 6

Issue 1: Does Marbury have a right to the commission

Answer 6

the commission took effect once the pres signed it but can only be utilized if he possesses it

Question 7

Issue 2: Does the law grant Marbury a remedy?

Answer 7

if the law says a citizen = entitled to it → gov = an obligation to follow their own laws

Question 8

Issue 3: is the remedy a writ of mandamus?

Answer 8

Jefferson is in the wrong but the fact that he’s not righting it himself then Marbury needs a writ of mandamus to get Jefferson to do what he needs to do. However it is not the court’s jurisdiction to make this happen.

Question 9

a mandamus is a

Answer 9

is an order to get someone to do something

Question 10

Can the supreme court issue a writ of mandamus through its original jurisdiction (Issue 3)

Answer 10

Can the supreme court issue a writ of mandamus through its original jurisdiction –>

Marshall = not foreign ambassador, two states are not suing each other → in all other instances supreme court = appellate jurisdiction → overruling/hearing cases from lower courts –> that’s where this case should have started

Question 11

two types of the jurisdiction

Answer 11

• appellate → Starts lower
• the original → case begins and ends with the supreme court
  
  • the constitution lays out which types of cases begin and end with the supreme court

Question 12

Can the supreme court issue a writ of mandamus through its original jurisdiction?

Answer 12

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority…to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States…between Citizens of different State –> Marshall = not foreign ambassador, two states are not suing each other → in all other instances supreme court = appellate jurisdiction → overruling/hearing cases from lower courts

Question 13

Marbury’s Argument

Answer 13

• doesn’t say these cases and only these cases → does this give congress the power to expand the supreme court’s power → add provisions
  
  • sounds similar to the argument in the term’s limit case
  • difference between letting congress expand courts jurisdiction and led states add term qualifications?
    
    • states adding additional qualifications but here we have congress adding something new → 10th amendment says that if it’s not something reserved to gov by constitution its a power a state can do → there is nothing like this, leaving open additional power to Congress (explicitly stated) in the constitution
    • except for the exceptions clause? → only apply in the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court
      
      • you don’t use a period if you want this exceptions clause to apply to the previous sentences → want to make it clear that congress can do this for any clause of the constitution → would have a comma
      • plain meaning textualism → qualifiers only are used for that sentence not the one before
        
        • sentence 2 → anything that is not original = appellate

-When congress passed the judiciary act it never undermined the constitution because it did not take away from the courts original powers to see things under original jurisdiction it just added to it

Question 14

Marshall’s Response

Answer 14

surplusage: redundant → if congress was completely in charge in determining which cases go to the supreme court in appellate or original jurisdiction then it would have been redundant to include anything of article 3 section 2 in the constitution if congress determined everything

• saying that the framers would never write something redundant into the constitution
• strict construction interpretation’/argument → literalists, not going beyond whats literally there in the text
  
  • he literally does not fall under the courts original jurisdiction
• structuralist

📍 similar to the term limits case → neither contain negative words, meaning that you could argue that there’s room to expand
- Supporters of term limits want to expand the jurisdiction just as Marbury does → why these two cases are similar

Question 15

congress and the lower courts

Answer 15

• congress = role to play in setting up the lower courts
  
  • article 3 → does not have a lot of detail → structure of courts = left up to congress
  • constitution is silent → States can make up rules
    
    • it is not silent here → gives congress a role with all but for setting up the courts original. jurisdiction
• the way congress set up things → if you need manadmis writ start at supreme court → congress for this to be constitutional cannot get in the way/manipulate the situation to make this happen

Question 16

Justifications for Judicial Review –> why supreme court should have this power (1)

Answer 16

1. for their future government → most important part
   
   • giving future generations something to work off of → permanent things
   • certain rules = more permanent
   • only talking about the people who ratified the constitution → the framers

Question 17

Justifications for Judicial Review –> why supreme court should have this power (2)

Answer 17

1. Congress = legislature
   
   1. someone needs to enforce the limits
   2. need someone to remind congress to think of/abide by their limits

Question 18

Justifications for Judicial Review –> why supreme court should have this power (3)

Answer 18

1. when you have a conflict over what the law means → that’s judges work → most famous quote
   
   1. settling disputes → wehter money based or laws that are conflicting with each other

Question 19

Signifigance of article 6 + Justification for judicial review

Answer 19

Any federal law made in pursuance of the constitution shall be the supreme law of the land → judges = bound

1. sets up legal food chain → at top = Constitution 
    1. some federal laws = also at the top, those mat in pursuance of constitution 
    2. at the bottom = state laws 
    3. conflict with ordinary state law + constitution → constitution = supreme law → state judges = obliged to set aside their own laws + constitution in favor of the us one

Question 20

Justifications for Judicial Review –> why supreme court should have this power (5)

Answer 20

1. regardless of where you start/end a case → to end up in court → cases arising under the constitution belong in federal court
   
   1. judges = the ability to look into the details of it
   2. original jurisdiction = states suing each other + ambassadors → how we know that there is a conflict between what congress said + judges/consiution

Question 21

Justifications for Judicial Review –> why supreme court should have this power (6)

Answer 21

Bill of attainder → a legislative act that imposes punishment without a trial.

1. cannot hold someone accountable for an action that became a crime after a law was passed = ex post facto law
2. congress nor state govs can make these laws
3. judges obeying the consiutionss declaration about this power

Question 22

Justifications for Judicial Review –> why supreme court should have this power (7)

Answer 22

1. if judge must obey bill of attainders → they have to violate the oath they swore to uphold
   
   1. begs the ? about whether the laws passed are constitutional → anyone who can pass a law or sign it takes the exact same oath of office
      
      1. saying that automatically when judges are fulfilling their oath they know better then when others do their job
      2. so would members of congress if they went along with an unconstitutional supreme court order

Question 23

Justifications for Judicial Review –> why supreme court should have this power (8)

Answer 23

1. at the top of the good chain = constitution
   
   1. not all federal laws = on food chain, only those made in pursuance of the constitution
   2. framers anticipated that laws would be passed that are in direct contradiction to the constitution or not in pursuance of the constitution

Question 24

Fallout

Answer 24

• decision was widely praised by newspaper from both political parties
  
  • federalists = happy → if they federalists = unable to win elections in th future have llivetime appointments + the power of judicial review → can strike down laws passed by republica dmeocrants
  • republican democrats → disclaiming power = federliasts
• marbury gave up, never served as a JOP
• Jefferson never publicly criticized the decision but he privately hated it
  
  • got a short term