Marbury Vs Madison Case Analysis

727 Words3 Pages
Quawontay Griswold October 23, 2014 American Government Marbury v. Madison Arguably the most important case in history was the Marbury versus Madison case. This was the first case in history that required judicial review. Judicial Review is the power of the Supreme Court to judge whether an official act or a piece of legislation violates the Constitution or other basic principles of justice. As said by Chief Justice John Marshall stated in the Marbury v. Madison case “...the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound…show more content…
Being that James Madison was against John Adams as well as all federalists who were on his team he declined William Marbury from commission. William Marbury did not agree to this in which he sued James Madison due to his commission. Due to the high officials appointed in this case, this case was trialed in the Supreme Court and left to Chief Justice John Marshall to make a liable argument to come to whether or not the actions taken were unconstitutional or not. In order to determine the verdict of which the case should be ruled, Chief Justice John Marshall had to encounter three individual questions to argue his point of view in the Marbury v. Madison case. One question was, Has Marbury a right to the writ or the commission he burdens? The other questions Chief Justice John Marshall rhetorically asked was, “Did the laws of the United States allow the courts to grant Marbury such. The third question Chief Justice John Marshall asked was, “If they did could the Supreme Court issue such a writ?” First addressing the question of, “Did Marbury have a right to commission his demands?” "that there shall be appointed in and for each of the said counties, such number of discreet persons to be justices of the peace as the president of the United States shall, from time to time, think expedient, to continue in office for five…show more content…
However as stated before the reason Marbury sued for his position is because James Madison did not want anything to do with Federalists, nor did he want anything to do with John Adams team. If John Adams were to become the justice of state before John Adams were out of office he could not be overlooked due to him being a federalists. However due to James Madison continuously denying his appointments he was not officially appointed to the position John Adams had for him The second question was did the laws of the United States allow the counts to grant Marbury such? This question is addressed in the second article of the constitution which declares that "the President shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the senate shall appoint, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not otherwise provided for."(Marbury v. Madison case) This question basically addresses the same thing as the first in which due to the president being the highest appointed official in the land, it is merely up to him. Despite his ignorance and unprofessional behavior, the president generally decides who and whom is not part of their team if they haven’t already been chosen by the prior

    More about Marbury Vs Madison Case Analysis

      Open Document