Supreme Court Case: The Marbury Vs. Madison Case

Marshall’s ruling on the Marbury v. Madison case was a stroke of political genius. Early in office, Marshall was confronted with an almost impossible political decision. Newly appointed to the Supreme Court, Marshall was asked by Marbury to challenge the Executive branch. Democratic Republican president Jefferson didn’t want Marbury to be appointed Justice of the Peace but Marbury asked the Marshall court to give Vice President Madison a writ of mandamus forcing him to deliver the document legally giving Marbury his desired position. This is a lose-lose situation for Marshall. If Marshall were to give the writ of mandamus, Jefferson would have Madison ignore it, the Executive branch being the only branch capable of enforcing laws, Madison would get off scot-free as …show more content…
Madison case, divided the case into three parts, each part reliant on the others for the case to be valid. Marshall’s creation of judicial review can be held to the same standard of three questions. First, is judicial review constitutionally acceptable? Second, if judicial review is acceptable, does the Judiciary Act violate the Constitution by Marshall’s reading? And third, if the two previous questions hold up, did Marshall even interpret the Constitution correctly. On the question of the constitutionality of judicial review, there is a relative grey area as the Constitution does not explicitly mention or prohibit judicial review in its brief three sections about the judicial branch of government. In order to understand if judicial review was originally intended it is important to get into implications of judicial review on the country. Marshall states in his defense of judicial review,
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally [this strengthens the claim that] a law repugnant to the Constitution is