Summary

 The American Highest Court case Marbury v Madison recognized the standard legal evaluation- the authority of the national courts in declaring jurisdictive and executive activities unconstitutional. John Marshall recorded the writings of the case (Bamzai, 2016).

 The name and style of the case

 In Marbury v Madison, the law court made a pioneered ruling a unique ruling that had never been made in US, that a court could declare an act of congress invalid if the act does not adhere to principles of the constitution (Bamzai, 2016). William Marbury was selected for the justice of peace position for Columbia district during the last days of Adam’s term. When Madison, secretary of state  refuted delivering Marbury’s directive, Marbury fired back with three of other supporters, petitioning the injunction of mandamus convincing delivery of the directive.

 The principal magistrate, standing for undisputed court, refused the request and consequently did not issue an injunction. Even though, the chief justice realized the requesters had the right to their demands, he still upheld his judgement through the constitution and did not waiver from what was right (Bamzai, 2016). Hence, he did not grant the Superlative Law court the authority to issue injunctions of mandamus. Unit 13 of the Magistrates Act (1789) states that one can issue a writ, but that part of the act was unpredictable and failed to align with the principles of the constitution. Therefore, the writ became invalid. The direct effect of the decision was blocking the authority of the courts; its long-term impact is increasing the court’s authority via creating the rule. Since the Marbury v Madison, the Superlative Law court was the ultimate authority in terms of the jurisdiction of the congress regulations.

The parties to the legal action

 Congress lacks the authority of permitting laws that dominate the constitution, through the expansion of the range of the Supreme Court’s initial prerogative (Orren, & Walker, 2013). Thomas won the 1800 presidential elections against John Adams. Before Jefferson ascended into office in March 4, Adams together with the congress enacted a judicial act, which generated district courts, in the process expanding the circuit courts, adding the number of judges to each and every single circuit court, giving the president an added influence over the selected federal judges and reducing the supreme court magistrates reduced from five to six. This regulation suggestively was an effort by Adams and his party-political plan to hinder the opposition from making interfering in government power (Feldman, 2013). After the changes, the president had the power of appointing 16 circuit judges and 42 other magistrates commonly referred to as midnight judges. The newly appointees got support from the senate; nevertheless, their appointments were not under the constitution unless, the secretary of state permits them.

 The facts of the case

 The case had a powerful impact on the American Supreme Court after it publicly declared an act of the congress invalid. The case set a precedent for legal appraisal written by John marshal in the year 1803 (Orren, & Walker, 2013). Another fact was that the president appointed William Marbury as justice for peace. Marbury was also one of the ‘midnight appointees’. He got his commission at the start of Jefferson’s appointment. After the inauguration and assuming his duties, Jefferson directed James Madison, to suppress Marbury’s commission. Marbury appealed the case at the Supreme Court and lobbied for the issue an injunction of Mandamus.

 The procedural history of the case

Madison did not complete the former president’s selection of Marbury as justice of peace. Marbury immediately appealed to the Superlative Law court for a reasonable solution in terms of a injunction of mandamus (Feldman, 2013). The Superlative Law court upheld that even though Marbury had the constitutional right to a solution, Unit 13 of the courts act 1789 extended the authority of the superlative court of law, which  was illegal and outside of the constitution.

 Before this case, absence of regulations rendered it unconstitutional (Feldman, 2013). The key importance of the Marbury v Madison was that it assisted in defining the initial authority of the American Supreme Court. In terms of procedural history, Marbury made his way to the Supreme Court to compel Madison, the secretary of state for the sake of delivering the directive.

 The issues

            Whether the legal case was the first of its kind to declare an act of congress void hence consolidating the policy of legal evaluation. The court decision caused a pendulum effect, which reverberated through the American future, as the law was one of the elements used for establishing American constitutions (Orren, & Walker, 2013). Days before Jefferson ascended into office, the congress generated a 16 circuit judge positions and an indefinite number of new positions, which Adams continued to fill with federalists in an attempt to preserve the party’s power and influence of judicial activities while at the same time covering up the corrupt deals. Marbury and his attorneys argued that validation and closing the commission completed the deal and the delivery in case of a constituted formality. Nevertheless, in the existence of a formality or not, the definite part of parchment, Marbury failed to enter into the roles of the office.

 The holdings

Most of the scholars questioned whether Marshall would have dropped the case due to his prior services as secretary of state during Adam’s tenure. Perhaps, later on the legal principles would call for recusal (Feldman, 2013). However, at that point in time, only monetary associations affiliated to the case guided the judges step away as Marshall did in terms of the legality of the issues which he had a vested interest.

 Analysis

 For the sake of staying on the same page, a injunction of mandamus refers to a court order directed a government personnel, commanding him or her to obey official duties appropriately or rectify an abuse (Feldman, 2013). Marbury utilized the provisions under the judicial act 1789 to facilitate his rights to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court refuted Marbury’s request as the chief justice Marshall affirmed that the judicial act 1789 was not constitutional for it granted the Supreme Court power  that was prohibited by article III of the American constitution. More so, he stood his ground and claimed that the constitution failed to provide the Supreme Court the authority to issue writ of Mandamus. In other words, the judicial act of 1789 recognized the national judicial of America. According to the article III part I, the American constitution prescribes that the authority of the judicial system relies on the Supreme Court and lower courts.

 Dissents

The dissenting opinions relied on whether the court should have the last say in matter pertaining the judiciary (Feldman, 2013). Some think that the congress act should have all the power and not necessarily aligned to the constitution for the greater good of the nation in some emergency situations. Hence, the need for approving laws from both the court and the congress.

References

Bamzai, A. (2016). Marbury v. Madison and the Concept of Judicial Deference. Mo. L. REv., 81, 1057.

Feldman, S. M. (2013). Chief Justice Roberts's Marbury Moment: The Affordable Care Act Case (NFIB v. Sebelius). Wyo. L. REv., 13, 335.

Orren, K., & Walker, C. (2013). Cold Case File: Indictable Acts and Officer Accountability in Marbury v. Madison. American Political Science Review, 107(2), 241-258.