In the historic 1803 Marbury v. Madison Supreme Court Case, William Marbury filed suit and requested the Supreme Court to order James Madison to convey to Mr. Marbury the commission of justice of the peace for the District of Columbia. This was originally appointed to him by President John Adams prior to him leaving office. Mr. Marbury contended that while this appointment was never officially commissioned; it was, nonetheless, rightfully and legally his. While this case originated as a debate between two political parties regarding the legality of an appointment, the ruling by Justice John Marshall established a far greater and longer reaching precedent.
In Justice Marshall’s ruling, he noted that while Marbury was entitled to the commission, that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to force Madison to deliver the commission. Justice Marshall explained that the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that provided the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over these matters was invalid because it was unconstitutional.
While Mr. Jefferson expressed valid points, I believe that Justice Marshall’s ruling can be defended through the following points:
Justice Marshall's ruling essentially established the …show more content…
The system of checks and balances of power in our political system is essential and judicial review is but one assurance that no single person or group can make a determination to override the Constitution. Members of the Supreme Court must police themselves from within through educated and powerful discussions. It is unlikely that a majority of the group would ever become despots, unchecked by the larger group. In all, there must be checks and balances in our system and the power of judicial review stands as a very critical aspect of this process, while maintaining the equitable balance of power between our branches of
In Justice Marshall’s ruling, he noted that while Marbury was entitled to the commission, that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to force Madison to deliver the commission. Justice Marshall explained that the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that provided the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over these matters was invalid because it was unconstitutional.
While Mr. Jefferson expressed valid points, I believe that Justice Marshall’s ruling can be defended through the following points:
Justice Marshall's ruling essentially established the …show more content…
The system of checks and balances of power in our political system is essential and judicial review is but one assurance that no single person or group can make a determination to override the Constitution. Members of the Supreme Court must police themselves from within through educated and powerful discussions. It is unlikely that a majority of the group would ever become despots, unchecked by the larger group. In all, there must be checks and balances in our system and the power of judicial review stands as a very critical aspect of this process, while maintaining the equitable balance of power between our branches of