Page 42 - Demo

194 CHAPTER 6 %u2022 The Federal Judiciarycommissions%u2014Marshall risked being ignored by the president or even impeached by the Republican-controlled Congress. Marshall could deny Marbury%u2019s petition, thus preventing a confrontation with Jefferson and his Republicans. However, to do so might send a message that the judiciary was weak in the face of powerful political forces, which could deal a blow to its power, prestige, and independence. The way in which Marshall dealt with this dilemma continues to shape the role of the Supreme Court in American political life to this day.Marbury v. Madison and the Establishment of%u00a0Judicial%u00a0ReviewIn the case of Marbury v. Madison, Marshall broke the decision before him into three separate questions. First, the chief justice asked if the men were entitled to their commissions. To this first question, Marshall, in his opinion, answered yes. The president had signed the commissions. Presidential signing of commissions is the last formal act before the appointment is finalized, and that had been done. Delivery of the commissions, Marshall noted, %u201cis a practice directed by convenience, but not by law.%u201d50 Once this part of the decision was established, Marshall considered whether or not the Court could provide Marbury and the other plaintiffs with a legal remedy. To this second question, Marshall also answered in the affirmative, arguing that %u201cthe individual who considers himself [so] injured has a right to resort to the laws of the country for a remedy.%u201d51Marshall presented a third question for the Court: Were Marbury and the other plaintiffs entitled to the remedy that they sought%u2014the writs of mandamus? To this question, Marshall answered no. The power to issue these kinds of writs in this particular instance, he declared, had been improperly given to the Court by a section of the Judiciary Act of 1789.52 Marshall argued that when Congress granted the Court the authority %u201cto issue writs of mandamus to public officers,%u201d it was attempting to expand the scope of the original jurisdiction of the Court, which Congress cannot do. Article III of the Constitution limits the Supreme Court%u2019s original jurisdiction to a few, specifically AP%u00ae REQUIRED SUPREME COURT CASE BRIEF: Marbury v. Madison (1803)Facts William Marbury was appointed to the federal judiciary under the Judiciary Act of 1801. His appointment was confirmed by the Senate, but the Jefferson administration did not deliver his commission. Marbury sued, asking the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus requiring the Jefferson administration to deliver his commission.Issue Is the Judiciary Act of 1789, which gave the Supreme Court the power to issue a writ of mandamus, constitutional?Decision and HoldingMadison won. The Supreme Court overturned the portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that authorized the Court to issue the writ of mandamus requested by Marbury.Reasoning The Judiciary Act of 1789 expanded the Supreme Court%u2019s powers beyond what is enumerated in Article III of the Constitution. Therefore, that portion of the Judiciary Act is unconstitutional. The Constitution is the %u201csupreme Law of the Land,%u201d and the Supreme Court has the power to overturn acts of Congress that violate the Constitution. This established the power of judicial review.Preparing for the AP%u00aeExamMarbury v. Madison (1803)the Supreme Court decision that established judicial review over federal laws.Judicial nominee William Marbury, whose suit against James Madison in Marbury v. Madison established judicial review of federal law.Sarin Images/GRANGER-All Rights Reserved%u00a9 Bedford, Freeman & Worth Publishers. For review purposes only. Do not distribute.