Marbury v Madison

Question 1

Who was the second president who was going out of office in this case, who did he lost to, and what were their beliefs?

Answer 1

Adams lost to Jefferson. Adams was a federalist and supporter of a constitution and strong national government. Jefferson opposed a strong national government and favored individual state rights.

Question 2

When did the federalists lose power?

Answer 2

November 1800

Question 3

When will the new government take effect?

Answer 3

March 3, 1801

Question 4

What did the Federalists do on their way out?

Answer 4

Established federal circuit courts on their way out, used presidential power to have Adams nominate federal “midnight judges”

Question 5

How many midnights judges were nominated and how many did not receive their commissions?

Answer 5

About 40 justices were nominated and 4-5 did not get their commission delivered in time

Question 6

Process for placing a federal judge

Answer 6

Nominated by President, approved by senate majority, then sec of state signs and seals it

Question 7

What was Marbury’s argument?

Answer 7

It was signed and sealed and therefore must be delivered

Question 8

What was the defendant’s argument?

Answer 8

It wasn’t delivered so you don’t have a right to it

Question 9

What was the issue on merit?

Answer 9

Does Marbury have a legal right to the commission?

Question 10

Why did Marbury lose?

Answer 10

Jurisdictional issue- the court did not have the jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the Secretary of State

Question 11

Who did Marshall agree with?

Answer 11

Marbury

Question 12

What did Marshall first argue the case on, then second, and why?

Answer 12

He argued first on the merits, then on the jurisdictional/constitutional issue so that he could say that Jefferson acted unlawfully

Question 13

Had Chief Justice Marshall interpreted the statute differently, which would have been valid?

Answer 13

He wouldn’t have had the satisfaction of declaring it unconstitutional, and therefore void.
Marbury would not have had his commission delivered
He could have found that the statute did not grant the Court subject matter jurisdiction over the case

Question 14

Had Chief Justice Marshall interpreted the constitutional provision differently, how would the results be different?

Answer 14

Court would order Marbury’s commission be delivered
Would have read the Constitution as setting a floor for original jurisdiction that Congress could add to
Court would still have reached the merits of the case
Statute would have been constitutional
There would be jurisdiction
No establishment of judicial review
Court would order the delivery of the commission

Question 15

Counter Arguments to the Idea that Marshall “cynically manipulated his opinion”

Answer 15

He had every right not to recuse himself from the proceedings - set the tone for lax recusal standards
Not a political question because there was no Textually Demonstrable Constitutional Commitment of the Issue to a Coordinate Political Department and none of the other instances in which a PQ declaration is appropriate
It is the Supreme Court’s right and duty to say what the law is - they interpret the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land - Supremacy Clause
The power of judicial review is implied from the text of the Constitution -
The 10th Amendment does not say the powers not “expressly delegated” to the United States by the Constitution

Question 16

Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison - Constitutional Interpretation

Answer 16

Marshall interpreted Art. III, Sec. II, Cl. II, as setting forth an exhaustive list of the categories of possible Supreme Court original jurisdiction
Instead, he might have interpreted the list as illustrative, but not exhaustive, as setting a floor, not a ceiling
In this case, the statute would not have been unconstitutional even if it were interpreted as an expansion of the Court’s original jurisdiction because Art. III would not have precluded such an expansion.

Question 17

Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison - Statutory Construction

Answer 17

Marshall construed section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 as expanding the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by authorizing it to issue writs of mandamus to executive officers
Instead, he might have that the Act conferred mandamus power only suitable to appellate jurisdiction, and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because this was not an appeal
Alternatively, he might have found that the Act conferred mandamus power suitable to one of the constitutional authorized categories of original jurisdiction, and again dismissed for lack of jurisdiction since this case did not fall into one of those categories

Question 18

Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison - Political Question

Answer 18

Marshall determined that Marbury’s right to his commission was a legal, not a political question, and thus a writ of mandamus would ordinarily be appropriate
He instead might have ruled the question whether Marbury’s Commission must be delivered a political question committed to the unreviewable discretion of the executive branch
He might also have ruled, as a matter of prudence, cabinet officers should not be made subject to writs of mandamus

Question 19

Alternative routes by which Marshall might have avoided reaching the opinion’s influential opinion:

Answer 19

Recusal
Common Law
Political Question
Statutory Construction
Constitutional Interpretation