University of Texas at Arlington
Marbury v. Madison
The case Marbury v. Madison highlights the issue of an end of term appointee of President John Adams who didn’t ascend to the office upon the assumption of the presidency by Thomas Jefferson. Marbury sued the then secretary of state James Madison for failing to execute the commission. According to the Law, the supreme court has the authority of reviewing both executive and legislative orders. The court, however, has limited jurisdiction that is bounded by the Constitution and cannot be enlarged by the Congress.
The case began when President John Adams failed to complete the appointment of Marbury as the Justice …show more content…
It is expected that these officials are appointed and complete within the term of the president who makes the appointment. John Adams then failed to finish the appointment formally and exited the office before the full appointment could be effected. Marbury assumed his duties and took up roles but was denied by the new President Thomas Jefferson who together with his appointed State Secretary rejected the appointment and subsequent refusal to complete the commission process (Magliocca, 2012).
It was through these facts that Marbury brought a case before the supreme court challenging the validity of the actions by Madison in the refusal of complete the commission process. In filing Marbury sought Writ of mandamus that could compel state secretary Madison to execute the commission process. The writ mandamus forces a state office to complete a ministerial act as it is recognized by law and not individual …show more content…
Suppose two laws are opposing each other, it is the duty of the court to determine the applicability of legislation in a particular application.
According to the US constitution, it affirms that the supreme court will have a jurisdiction in cases that affect high-profile state officers. An appellate court will only apply to other cases. The Congress, therefore, has the freedom of giving the supreme court an appellate jurisdiction since the constitution clearly states that the supreme court should have an original jurisdiction which in this case is appellate (Mason & Stephenson, 2015).
The Court through Chief Justice Marshall has shown that the constitution is more superior than the federal law. No place in the constitution affirms the words Justice Marshall proclaimed. In making his judgment, Marshall stated that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” There is no mention of such words in the Constitution, but it has come to the attention of the courts that whenever there is a conflict of law, the constitution is always supreme (Murphy,