Marbury v Madison case

With regard to deciding the Marbury v. Madison case, Chief Justice John Marshall faced the following three legal challenges. Firstly, was the petitioner entitled to the said writ? Secondly, did American laws permit the granting of this sort of writ to Marbury? Lastly, if the answer to the second question was in the affirmative, could this sort of writ be issued by the US Supreme Court?

With respect to the very first issue raised, the Chief Justice held that the petitioner had been appointed appropriately according to legally-set down procedures, thus being entitled to this writ. Furthermore, owing to the petitioner's legal entitlement to the commission, he should be offered a remedy by the law. Marshall further stated that the courts were especially duty-bound to safeguard citizens' rights -- even if it was against the nation's president himself. At that time, his ill-disguised reprimanding of President Thomas Jefferson regarding the rule of law proved a lot more controversial compared to his proclamation regarding judicial review (a doctrine that was commonly accepted).

When it came to resolving the last question (i.e., was it the right remedy for the US Supreme Court to issue the 'mandamus' writ?), the Chief Justice tackled the judicial review issue. He held that it wasn't permissible for the US Supreme Court to grant this writ as the 1789 Judiciary Act's 13th section, which authorizes this, was unconstitutional to the extent that it covered original jurisdiction cases. Original jurisdiction or the authority of directly bringing cases to the US Supreme Court represented the sole jurisdictional issue the American Constitution itself addressed. Article III ordains that it is only applicable to cases wherein the government is a party and that impact public ministers such as consuls and ambassadors. By broadening the original jurisdiction of the Court for incorporating Marbury v. Madison and similar cases, the Congress had gone above its authority. The Chief Justice claimed that when a Congressional decision contradicted the Constitution, the Court was duty-bound to support the Constitution as the 6th Article establishes that it is America's "supreme law."

The act of establishing America's judicial courts permits issuance of mandamus writs by the US Supreme Court, in instances that are warranted by law usage and principles, to all courts established, or individuals with authority, by US governmental permission (Marbury v. Madison, 1803).

Absolute judicial power in America is constitutionally granted to the Supreme Court, as well as other lower courts ordained and established by the Congress occasionally. This authority is specifically extended to every case that arises under American laws, and hence can, in a way, be exerted over the current case, as the claimed right is accorded by an American law.

The Chief Justice proclaimed that in distributing this authority, the Court possesses original jurisdiction with regard to every case wherein any state is involved and every case that impacts public ministers such as consuls and ambassadors. The Court maintains appellate jurisdiction in every other case.

The bar asserts that, owing to the generic nature of the original jurisdiction grant to lower courts and the Supreme Court, and the fact that the clause which assigns original jurisdiction to it does not comprise of any restrictive or negative terms, the legislature retains the authority of original jurisdiction allocation to the Court in cases besides those stated in the aforementioned article, provided the cases lie under American judicial power. Hence, Marshall may be rightly called the Supreme Court's "father" as he nearly-single-handedly upheld and clarified its powers. The Marbury v. Madison case boosted the balances and checks system by according the US judiciary a rather powerful check on Congressional (i.e., legislature) actions.

This case's most salient impact was on American governance's nature, as it accorded the US Supreme Court judicial review authority. The Court could declare Congressional laws unconstitutional. Despite the fact that this authority wasn't employed for several decades since then, it has greatly impacted the way America looks in the present day.

Were it not for the Marbury v. Madison case, America may have had a system wherein any Congress-voted and presidentially-signed law couldn't be annulled by a higher authority. In other words, America would probably still be having a system wherein the government could severely restrict several liberties currently enjoyed by citizens. Also, racism and racial segregation may have lasted considerably longer than it actually did. The judicial review provision of this case allowed US courts to do more with regard to protecting unpopular minority communities' rights as compared to numerous other nations.