Marbury V Madison Essays (Examples)

The Constitution gave the Supreme Court the responsibility to uphold the Constitution as the "Supreme Law of the Land," that is, supreme against Federal laws and State laws. Although each State had its own State Constitution and a Judiciary tasked with upholding the Constitution, State laws that violated the Federal Constitution could be overturned by a Federal court.
The Power of the Judiciary Relative the Legislative and Executive ranches

The Framers of the Constitution viewed the Judiciary as a Check on the other two branches, not necessarily as a dynamic force in itself. In the Federalist Paper No. 78, James Madison wrote that "…the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution . . . [it] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the…

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…

Marbury v. Madison
Facts of the case

hat were the circumstances of Marbury v. Madison in 1803? hy do some scholars and historians refer to Marbury v. Madison as among the most important cases to ever come before the United States Supreme Court? This paper covers the issues surrounding this case, presenting the facts and scholarship relating to the case as well.

Facts of the case

This was the first case to reach the Supreme Court in which the principle of "judicial review" was used. The judicial review concept came into play because the federal courts for the first time utilized their power to overrule legislation by Congress that went against the United States Constitution. The election of 1800 the Federalists (John Adams' party) were defeated by the party led by Thomas Jefferson, the Democratic-Republican party. This led to what the Public Broadcast Service (PBS) explains was an "atmosphere of…

Marbury v. Madison was a case between William Marbury and James Madison in 1803, which sparked one of the most important decisions made in American history. The case itself has actually enabled the Supreme Court to declare an act of law unconstitutional. Marbury v. Madison also further established the idea of judicial review within the United States, allowing the courts some power in nullifying the decisions of one branch of government. It allowed for the U.S. form of "checks and balances" in the government.
Battle of Saratoga

The battle that took place in Saratoga at 1777 was a major patriotic victory during the American Revolutionary War. Commander John Burgoyne surrendered in October 17, 1777, after having been surrounded by General Horatio Gates. This was not only a British defeat, but it also indicated the general setbacks for the Iroquois leaders who sided with the British army. The Iroquois Confederacy was…

Marbury v. Madison legal case involved a divergence between illiam Marbury and James Madison on account of how the latter did not act in agreement with former (he finished his term before Madison was appointed Secretary of State) President John Adams' command to deliver several appointments naming Federal circuit judges and Federalist justices. Madison did not act on this command because he was under the power of the newly appointed President, Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson knew that by allowing the appointments to be delivered he would have provided Federalists with the opportunity to exercise control over the federal judiciary.
Jefferson motivated his thinking by emphasizing that the commissions were invalid because they were not delivered by the end of Adams' term. This meant that federal justices would be appointed by a person who was not in the position to make such appointments. Marbury reacted by claiming that he had a right…

Marbury v. Madison
Judicial Review and Marbury v. Madison

Judicial review is the principle that the Supreme Court has the responsibility for deciding whether Congressional actions and the authority to nullify those laws that, in it's opinion, are unconstitutional. Though legislative nullification is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution as one of the Supreme Court's mandates, in practice judicial review is an extension of the principle of "checks and balances" inherent in the U.S. federal government's separation of powers. The Supreme Court established the principle of judicial review in the case of William Marbury v. James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States (usually referred to simply as Marbury v. Madison), which was decided on February 24, 1803. Though at first glance this case appeared to be a victory for the Jefferson administration, in reality, by institutionalizing the principle of judicial review, it decimated the Democratic-Republican assertions of the…

Legal Issues Presented
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…

Marbury v. Madison (1803) impact on the daily lives of American citizens In 1803, Marbury v. Madison made the US Constitution as the supreme law, affirming the authority of the Court over judicial review. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the federal courts are allowed to overturn the decisions of the other arms of government in the event that they act contrary to the Constitution (GROSSMAN). This is one of those "checks and balances" that are the core of the national government's function.

In 1800, Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, beat John Adams, a Federalist in becoming America's third president. Right before Adam's retirement, he introduced new positions in the judiciary, which he gave to his political partners. After Jefferson became president, James Madison, the State Secretary, refused to submit the commissions responsible for allowing judges to go back to work. Some of those who had been appointed, in inclusion of…

Marbury v. Madison case is a Supreme Court case that is studied due to its legal and historical significance. In the United States, this is the pioneering as well as most influential legal proceedings ever experienced. The case was the first one of that kind as it looked into the administrative that has been classified given that the law involves all interactions involving the Federal Government (Law.com, 2015).
A Federalist, President John Adams, ran for reelection and lost to Thomas Jefferson of epublican Party. It was the same election that saw the federalist lose control over Congress. However, Adams and Federalist Party maintained their control for a few months. This was before the newly elected President and the new Congress took office. It was during this time that Adams decided to persuade the Judiciary Act of 1801 to be passed by the Congress into a new law. The act gave…

Marbury, the president of the United States appointed him a justice of peace... And that the seal of the United States, affixed thereto by the secretary of state, is conclusive testimony of the verity of the signature, and of the completion of the appointment; and that the appointment conferred on him a legal right to the office for the space of five years...he [Marbury] has a consequent right to the commission; a refusal to deliver which is a plain violation of that right, for which the laws of his country afford him a remedy" (Marshall 1803). However, "the authority, therefore, given to the supreme court, by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States, to issue writs of mandamus to public officers, appears not to be warranted by the constitution," so Marshall stated the U.S. Supreme Court had no direct authority to issue the writ under the Judiciary…

Judicial review allows lawmakers to reflect changing morals and ideals when enacting legislation, but prevents them from allowing the hot-button topics of the moment to determine the laws of a nation. In fact, to really understand the success of judicial review, one need only look to the election in the Ukraine, where the Ukrainian Supreme Court may be the only body far-enough removed from party politics to ensure that Ukrainian voters have their say. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Justice Marshall should be very flattered.
orks Cited

The Gathering Storm." John Marshall: Definer of a Nation. 2003. DuPage County Bar

Association. 9 Dec. 2004 http:dcba.org/brief/sepissue/1997/art20997.htm.

Hugo Lafayette Black." Arlington National Cemetery ebsite. 2004. Arlington National

Cemetery ebsite. 9 Dec. 2004 http:www.arlingtoncemetery.net/hlblack.htm.

Judicial review/Marbury v. Madison." National Legal Center for the Public Interest. 2002.

National Legal Center for the Public Interest 9 Dec. 2004 http://www.nlcpi.org/pdf/JudicialReviewMarburyvMadison.pdf#search='judicial%20review%20marbury'.

Linder, Doug. "Judicial…

Constitution provides depicts what is necessary to amend the Constitution. Either two-thirds of both Houses of the Congress, or an application by the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, can call for a convention proposing amendments to the constitution. Ratification requires that the Legislatures of three fourths of the several states or Constitutional conventions in three-fourths of the states approving the ratification of those amendments. herefore, the Founding Fathers simultaneously ensured that the Constitution would be a living document, while also taking steps to preserve the Constitution and make it somewhat invulnerable to the changing whims of people.
he Founding Fathers appear to have had some trepidation about the idea of changing the Constitution. After all, the Constitution was the result of literally years of debate. It was not the first document to govern the former colonies after gaining independence from Great Britain, and the first system proved untenable.…

8. State the "law of the case" of each of the following: (10) a) Gonzales v. Raisch: ffirmed Oregon statute allowing doctors to prescribe controlled substances in assisted suicide and invalidated ttorney General's statutory interpretation that assisted suicide does not constitute practicing medicine..

b) First National Bank v. Bellotti: Invalidated Massachusetts law criminalizing corporate use of corporate funds to promote political agenda as a violation of corporations right to Free Speech under the 1st mendment..

c) Kelo v. New London: State power of eminent domain properly used even though taking of property inured to benefit of one private entity over another, because its effect was beneficial to the community..

d) darand v. Pina: Overturned Metro v FCC and decided that any type of racial classification used by any government agency triggers strict scrutiny.

e) Cole v. Burns International Security Systems: Employers may require employees to waive their right to litigate…

Revolution, Constitution and Enlightenment The American Revolution and the ensuing U.S. Constitution put forward by the Federalists were both products of and directly informed by the European Enlightenment. The Founding Fathers were considerably influenced by thinkers like Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau and Montesquieu (whose separation of powers served as the model of the three-branched government of the U.S.). This paper will explain how the European Enlightenment set the stage for the American Revolution and U.S. Constitution by putting out the ideas that the Americans would use as the basis of the political and social foundation.
The Enlightenment aka the Age of Reason was an Age in which natural philosophy assumed the vaulted position of guiding light over the preceding Age of Faith, which had served as the socio-political basis in Europe for centuries. The Reformation had upended the Age of Faith and introduced secularization into the political realm (Laux), particularly via…

Stare Decisis
Legal Precedent and the Legal System

The principle of stare decisis is a legal principle that suggests that courts rule consistently with case precedent or cases that have been previously decided. The doctrine originated from the common law in England and was purposed to promote uniformity in the justice system. Courts are not always bound to rule according to previous decisions, especially if these decisions are from districts outside of the sitting court, and increasingly many courts have declined to follow precedent in its rulings. However, the United States Supreme Court, as the highest Court in the land, sets the precedent for the courts of the country on constitutional issues. If a lower court fails to follow a Supreme Court decision, its decision will be overruled in the event of an appeal. Stare decisis, although instituted for a beneficial purpose, has not been without controversy. The Supreme Court…

omen on the Supreme Court: Do They Matter?
At present, there have only ever been four women to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. If women and men are capable of coming to the same conclusions, the question emerges concerning whether it matters that there have been so few. To determine the facts, this paper discusses the gender composition of the Supreme Court and the extent to which, if any, that the meager female representation on the Court has mattered. Finally, a summary of the research and important findings concerning these issues are presented in the conclusion.

To date, four women, Sandra Day O'Connor (who is now retired from the Court), Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagan have served as justices of the U.S. Supreme Court (oodruff 1). There are more women than men in the nation's population, though, at 50.8% versus 49.2%, respectively (U.S. population 1), so…

During the 70's and 80's some of these opportunities were eliminated by the actions of the Burger and Rehnquist courts but habeas corpus actions remain a major problem for both systems and our a source of much acrimony. In 1996, Congress amended the federal habeas corpus statute in order to provide some clarification as to how habeas corpus was to be applied and interpreted nationwide.
XI. The Eleventh Amendment and State Sovereign Immunity

Litigation occurring under the 11th Amendment attempts to reconcile two competing ideas: 1) state sovereign immunity which assumes that a state is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued, and 2) the power of the federal government that assumes that the states are subsidiary sovereigns to the federal system. Interpretations of the 11th Amendment have varied throughout the history of decisions on said issue but, presently, are a bar to unconsented suits by private citizens…

Amendments to the Constitution
In any criminal cases, the individual will be arraigned before the judge. This is when they will be informed about the charges and given the chance to enter a plea. Once this takes place, is the point a preliminary hearing is scheduled. It focuses on the evidence and if there is enough to warrant a trail. If the judge is convinced there is enough evidence, they will schedule a date and time for a jury trial. This is when there will be series of hearings challenging the discovery process, the evidence and any that could have been collected in violation of the Constitution. In these situations, the judge will rule on the evidence and determine which items can be included at trial. During the process, both sides will call witnesses and try to prove their case. (Hess, 2014) (Parpworth, 2012)

At the heart of these issues…

Meanwhile Congress was reluctant to challenge Bush (members feared being termed "unpatriotic" since Bush argued that the safety of Americans depended on the secret surveillance done by NSA) immediately, but in the past few months Congress (the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees) has demanded - and in part received - access to internal documents on the wiretapping program. "That access could ultimately help persuade skeptical lawmakers in the House, which so far has rejected the immunity idea, to sign on to the hite House's Plan" (Lichtblau 2008) according to the New York Times.
Indeed the Senate in January 2008 gave immunity for the phone companies that helped the NSA tap phones secretly, which means Verizon, at&T, et al., cannot be sued for assisting the Bush Administration with its warrantless wiretapping program (there are over 40 lawsuits pending over the phone companies' roles in the wiretapping). So here is a case…

Federal CourtsThe United States judicial system is based on the federal courts structure as established in Article III of the Constitution. This system has been the subject of numerous studies and publications that seek to explain how it works. illiam A. Fletcher and James E. Pfander wrote a book, Gilbert Law Summaries on Federal Courts, which provides an outline of the federal court system in the U.S. The book provides an outline of Article III courts, the requirement of case or controversy, advisory opinions, and justiciability. In addition, Fletcher & Pfander discuss congressional power over federal court jurisdiction, the

Any trade that crosses state lines or involves citizens from different state is considered interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause was considered an important power in the original drafting of the Constitution due to the controversies that were created in trading relationships between the states under the Articles of Confederation. As the nation has increased in size and economic activity, the application of the Commerce Clause has become increasingly more important. The landmark case of Marbury v. Madison established the power of the U.S. Supreme Court to interpret the application of the Commerce Clause.
4. What is discovery and what are the methods to obtain this information?

Discovery is the pre-trial phase in civil and criminal law where parties obtain information regarding the evidence possessed by the opposing side in the litigation. Various tools of discovery are available by the parties such as interrogatories, request for admissions, request for the production…

court ruling 'Two Views on Court's Ruling" (2003) presents the differing opinions of legal analysts Douglas W. Kmiec and Alan Hirsh regarding the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision to extend the legal definition of marriage to include homosexual couples. In the section entitled "Judges overstepped role," Kmiec argues that the Massachusetts ruling "tears at the institution of family upon which all else depends." In spite of his being a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine, Kmiec's position is based on opinion and a spurious morality, not on legal fact and precedent. Kmiec also argues that the decision was wrong because it was made by "judges who assume they are wiser than their fellow citizens." Hirsh, however, finds that "legally speaking, the decision in this case is in fact conservative." In his piece "Ruling is conservative," Hirsh anticipates arguments like those of Kmiec, referring to Marbury vs. Madison to note that the Massachusetts…

Judicial eview
Judiciary -governing and selection

Judiciary: Article eview

One of the most controversial decisions in recent memory of the U.S. Supreme Court was that of Citizens United, which effectively declared corporations 'persons' in terms of their ability to fund political campaigns through political action committees (PACs). According to Thomas B. Edsall's article "Cash and carry" for The New York Times, Citizens United and "a series of related cases, especially SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, which was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, have not just gutted campaign-finance reform. They have undermined the democratic character of the presidential nomination process by empowering the rich to exert disproportionate control over it" (Edsall 2012). Edsall excoriates the recent Citizens United decision, stating it has fundamentally undermined the democratic process.

In the past, the label of 'activist judges' has usually been wielded by conservatives against…

Individual Researc Task. Individual Researc: Overview
Medina vs. California, 505 U.S. 437 (1992). Retrieved from Findlaw at:

ttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=U.S.&vol=505&invol=437

Competency to stand trial (CST)

Medina was convicted of first-degree murder and in te state of California a person must establis is mental incompetency by te standard of a 'preponderance of evidence.' Te U.S. Supreme Court affirmed tis standard of a burden of proof, denying it violated te petitioner Medina's rigt to due process.

Dean v. United States (08-5274). (2009). Retrieved from Cornell University Law Scool at:

ttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/tml/08-5274.ZO.tml

Criminal responsibility (mens rea)

Dean was convicted under a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence requirement for firing a andgun during a robbery; Dean argued tat because e did not intend to fire te gun te mandatory minimum did not apply, owever te U.S. Supreme Court eld tat even if te gun went off accidentally, Dean was still liable to te mandatory minimum.

Pennurst State Scool…

Similarly, George Caleb Bingham depicts visually how merican political campaigns shifted their focus from appealing mainly to an elite body of male voters toward pandering to the public. Bingham portrays a group of voters clamoring to be heard, marking changes in the ways merican citizens viewed their role in the political process.

Using lofty language, Daniel Webster writes a Second Reply to Robert Y. Hayne regarding the debate over states' rights vs. federal authority. The debate continues until this day, and has always been a unique feature of merican politics. In fact, the Webster passage foreshadows the arguments that preceded the Civil War over whether states had the right to perpetuate the institution of slavery or whether the federal government had the ethical obligation to override state sovereignty. Webster's argument is clear and focused, urging a cohesive union…

American Politics
The American President is said to be the most powerful man in the world, but it is also said that the President has limited influence over domestic policy. Even if the President is relatively weak in terms of domestic policy, he still has tremendous power, more than just about anyone else. This paper will analyze the different formal and informal ways in which the President exerts influence over domestic policy. The paper will then examine the question of whether or not the President's authority on domestic affairs is relatively weak. This is an interesting question because it is a question of relativity in which the comparable matters. Compared with the President's powers on foreign affairs, Presidential powers in the realm of domestic affairs are relatively weak. Compared with anybody else's powers, the powers of the President in the realm of domestic affairs is strong; nobody else has as…