Marbury v. Madison President John Adams Appointed

Marbury v. Madison

President John Adams appointed William Marbury to be a justice of the peace. Normally that would have been perfectly acceptable, except for the act that Adams made the appointment two days before he left office (Faragher, et al., 2009). Thomas Jefferson, who took over the office of the Presidency from Adams, did not want Marbury to be a justice of the peace, so he denied the position by telling his Secretary of State, James Madison, to withhold the commission that would have to be delivered in order to make Marbury's appointment official (Faragher, et al., 2009). When Madison withheld the commission, Marbury filed a lawsuit requesting that the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus and force Madison to give Marbury the commission (and, therefore, the position) he believed he was owed (Faragher, et al., 2009). The goal of the lawsuit was to get the position he wanted and to which he believed he was entitled, but in reality much more than that was accomplished.

The Court ruled that Marbury was entitled to the position he had been given by Adams, but at the same time the Court also ruled that it was not in a position to tell the executive branch (i.e. The president) what to do (Faragher, et al., 2009). In short, the Court said Marbury should have the position but could not do anything about getting that position for him. The principle was established that the federal judiciary was the only group that could determine what a law actually was, which pleased both parties (Faragher, et al., 2009). It appeared as though Jefferson and Madison had won, but overall the decision was acceptable to both the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. The decision also set the precedent for what the Supreme Court could and could not do in the future, and gave the Court more power than it had in the past (Faragher, et al., 2009). Additionally, it helped the judiciary to remain completely independent, and showcased the balance of power that is seen between the three different branches of government.

Overall, Marbury v. Madison seemed like a small thing on its surface. It was a lawsuit asking for something that was promised by a person in a position of power, and then denied by another person in a position of power. Because of the way the decision was made, however, there were larger ramifications than just whether one person was able to be a justice of the peace. The Court ruled that it had the power to declare legislation unconstitutional if necessary, which would maintain the balance of government but would also give the Court more power than it had ever used or held in the past (Faragher, et al., 2009). Naturally, giving too much power to one branch of the government is a poor choice, because that branch may abuse that power. By providing the Court with more power, the Court was able to continue to hold a balance with the other two governmental branches.