Home Page
Original Meaning And Structural Analysis Of Chief Justice Marshall

Original Meaning And Structural Analysis Of Chief Justice Marshall

Improved Essays

Show More

Chief Justice Marshall used both Original Meaning, Original Intent, and Structural Analysis in the interpretation of the Constitution as it applied to Marbury v. Madison. Marbury raised concerns in his case against Madison in which Chief Justice Marshall decided: 1st The right to the commission of Justice 2nd If he had the right was the right violated and do the laws give him a form of redress 3rd If he has a form of redress, it a mandamus issued by the Supreme Court
In addressing the Marbury’s 1st point Justice Marshall refers to Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution and interprets the passage through Original Meaning as he states “It is... decidedly the opinion of the court, that when a commission has been signed by the President, …show more content…
In addressing Marbury’s third point Justice Marshall uses both Original Meaning and Intent interpretation of the Constitution as he references Article 3 which provides the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Marbury brought his case to the Supreme Courts under Article 2 Section 2 seeking a writ of mandamus making his case originating in the Supreme Court and not an appellate review. Marshall uses Original Intent, Original Meaning, and Stare Decisis as he uses the literal meaning of Article 3 Section

Related Documents

Improved Essays
Justice Macalia Textualism
- 1571 Words
- 7 Pages
Justice Macalia Textualism

Nonetheless, Justice Scalia argues that in the event that intent is not projected well, why not include the right materials for the court’s consideration? (Scalia 16). For that reason, the textualism approach views only the founder’s intent. On the other hand, for Justices who adhere to living/evolving Constitution approach, intent is interpreted in a different manner. For Justices who interpret the law with the living Constitution approach, intent is grounded on what the legislator meant when the law was written.…
- 1571 Words
- 7 Pages
Improved Essays

Read More
Great Essays
Government Vs Constitution
- 1410 Words
- 6 Pages
Government Vs Constitution

1. According to the excerpts from Marshall 's ruling in Reading 9.1.1 and from Federalist No. 78 in Reading 9.1.2, if the Constitution says one thing and a law passed by Congress says another, the Constitution must give way. In the excerpt from Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), the author argues that the powers of the legislature are “defined and limited”. Acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution are not law, and the Courts are bound to give way to the Constitution.…
- 1410 Words
- 6 Pages
Great Essays

Read More
Superior Essays
Statutory And Constitutional Interpretation
- 1507 Words
- 7 Pages
Statutory And Constitutional Interpretation

He explains in his essay “A Matter of Interpretation,” that textualism is the proper approach to interpreting the Constitution. Justice Scalia adheres to the principle of reading the letter of the law rather than the intent of the law (Scalia 23). For many years the Supreme Court of United States has practiced…
- 1507 Words
- 7 Pages
Superior Essays

Read More
Improved Essays
Judicial Restraint: Case Study
- 932 Words
- 4 Pages
Judicial Restraint: Case Study

Also, striking down or disregarding precedents can be done as an act of judicial activism. Or, to exercise judicial activism the court may reframe the constitution creatively. To detect judicial activism, one should look for the courts to reinterpret the constitution, oust some legislation that they deem unconstitutional, or ending certain precedents by disregarding their existence. Judicial restraint,…
- 932 Words
- 4 Pages
Improved Essays

Read More
Superior Essays
What Was Chief Justice Marshall's Argument In Favor Of This Doctrine
- 804 Words
- 4 Pages
What Was Chief Justice Marshall's Argument In Favor Of This Doctrine

- Judicial review is the power that the judiciary has to review laws passed by the states, or government regulations that could possibly conflict with the US Constitution. The Supreme Court has the original, and final right, to determine if any states’ law conflict with the Constitution. The Supreme Court also has the right to review governmental policies, and legislation. This Supreme Court’s judicial review was set into precedent by the Marbury v. Madison case, in which controversy over a “writ of mandamus” cause the court to establish its right to review under Article…
- 804 Words
- 4 Pages
Superior Essays

Read More
Improved Essays
Supreme Court Principles
- 1299 Words
- 6 Pages
Supreme Court Principles

There are three principals that defines the constitution and how the law works. One principle is that the Constitution stands above ordinary laws. Another principle is that the Supreme Court defines the Constitution and determine the law. Lastly, the court invalidates laws that are conflict with the Constitution. The unique position of the supreme court stems from the…
- 1299 Words
- 6 Pages
Improved Essays

Read More
Great Essays
The Importance Of Supreme Court Judges
- 1462 Words
- 6 Pages
The Importance Of Supreme Court Judges

Chief Justice Marshall presented a question in the decision of Marbury v. Madison; was asking the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus constitutional? The Judiciary Act of 1789 stated that the Supreme Court had the power to issue writs of mandamus its under original jurisdiction, conflicting with article three of the constitution which states “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction” (Section 2, Clause 2). Marbury addressed the issue of…
- 1462 Words
- 6 Pages
Great Essays

Read More
Improved Essays
The Importance Of Constitutional Interpretation: Originalism
- 1449 Words
- 6 Pages
The Importance Of Constitutional Interpretation: Originalism

The judicial role of determining constitutionality looks like a seemingly simple process: the judge, an important part of the separation of powers, determines whether a law is in accordance with the constitution or not. In reality, the responsibility of the judicial system is far from that generalized perspective, and this is where the great debate begins. When interpreting the constitution, there are two distantly polar ways of reading it. There are originalists (Scalia and Bork) who contend that it is important to uncover the framers’ intent when applying the constitution to today’s issues, while the living constitutionalists (Tribe, Dworkin, and Brennan) read the constitution in a modern context, providing for the evolution of society. While the living constitutionalists make a convincing case, their arguments do not stand up to the originalist arguments when applied to historical accounts of constitutional interpretation.…
- 1449 Words
- 6 Pages
Improved Essays

Read More
Improved Essays
The Doctrine Of Parliamentary Sovereignty
- 1214 Words
- 5 Pages
The Doctrine Of Parliamentary Sovereignty

One of such instances is illustrated in the case of R v Secretary of State ex p. Factortame (No. 2) where the European Court of Justice held that the provisions of the 1988 Merchants Shipping Act were to be dis-applied by the courts if they opposed EU law. This action of the court is cited by Sir William Wade as an exception to the rule expressed in the third limb of Dicey’s doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty which is that one Parliament cannot bind or be bound by another. An opposing argument to that theory is that the outcome of the case was merely a result of statutory construction—which means that the court took certain external factors into consideration— and not an opposition to the sovereignty of parliament. Paul Craig claims that this opposing argument would likely favour the judges because it does not suggest a possible limitation of parliament.…
- 1214 Words
- 5 Pages
Improved Essays

Read More
Superior Essays
Federalist Vs Anti Federalism
- 1295 Words
- 6 Pages
Federalist Vs Anti Federalism

In disagreement with those that opposed a strong central government, contended that it was necessary. In Federalist 1, Alexander Hamilton explains the necessity for ratification. It states “it will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution.” Alexander Hamilton is stating to allow the passage of the new constitution to keep that nation stable, and promote a non-hostile environment. This is a departure from the events that lead up to the Articles of Confederation. In order to do this, Alexander Hamilton along with the other authors of the Federalist Papers, required a strong central government.…
- 1295 Words
- 6 Pages
Superior Essays

Read More

Related Topics