Marbury v. Madison

Marbury v. Madison is a 1803 by the Supreme Court of the United States decided the case, who achieved outstanding importance in American jurisprudence. With this decision, the Supreme Court stated the right to review federal laws on their constitutionality and those annul ( judicial review ). Not least because of the vote won the court under Chief Justice John Marshall, referred to as "the Marshall Court", political and historical significance.

The case is also internationally noteworthy because it was the first the concept of constitutional jurisdiction, though not in this description, brought forth. Although there have been in Europe since the 15th century case law on the delimitation of the rights of state organs, judicial review was because of the political system of the U.S. Constitution but in a qualitatively new constellation, as positivist control the tension between popular sovereignty and separation of powers.

Background

In the presidential election in 1800 Thomas Jefferson defeated the incumbent John Adams and became the third president of the United States. Although the result of the election had been decided on 17 February 1801 Jefferson joined constitutionally only on March 4, 1801 the president. Until that day, Adams and his Federalist party controlled by Congress were more in power. They feared that Jefferson, of an "anti- federalist " was the founder of the opposition party Democratic Republicans, could end the political dominance of the Federalist Party. Against this Jeffersonian Revolution in Anti - Federalists a stronghold of Justice should be built in the last days in office, the former government. To this end, Congress passed on 13 February 1801 a new Law Court ( Judiciary Act of 1801), which created a new set of federal courts, which should be controlled by the Federalists.

On March 2, appointed Adams - as deselected President nurmehr a Lame Duck - still 42 Federalists as judges in these new dishes. The Senate approved the appointments on the following day to a few hours before Adams ' handover. One of these so-called " midnight judges " candidate ( Midnight Judges ) was William Marbury, who has been appointed Judge of the District of Columbia. At 12 clock noon on March 4 ended the tenure Adams and Jefferson was sworn in as the new president.

Marburys certificate of appointment was signed by Adams and John Marshall in his office as Secretary of State. Still a bit more complicated, the case was the fact that John Marshall was Chief Justice of Adams already appointed on 4 February to the new, but he continued officiated until the inauguration of Jefferson as minister and only on March 3 took office at the Supreme Court. The next day he took the oath of office Jefferson.

Jefferson saw 25 of the 42 signed on the day of his investiture certificates of appointment as void because they were not delivered until the end of the day. Jefferson appointed James Madison as its new Secretary of State and told him to not deliver the certificates.

Marbury then lodged a complaint with the Supreme Court. The suit demanded that the Court by James Madison Provisional legal protection ( writ of mandamus ) should arrange to deliver the certificates of appointment, so that the appointments would be legally binding.

Relevant law

"In all cases affecting ambassadors, ambassadors and consuls, and those in which a single State Party exercises the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all other cases mentioned above, the Supreme Court on appeal is both in terms of legislative and factual assessment in accordance with conditions to be determined by Congress exception and procedural provisions. "

"The Supreme Court Shall therefore have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases after entering Provided for; and Shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts ... and writs of mandamus ... to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States. "

" The Supreme Court of Appeal jurisdiction over the district courts and the courts of each state holds in the cases that are listed hereafter, and has the right, responsibility and desist orders [ with suspensive effect ] to the district courts ... and Preliminary arrangements ... all dishes to ask or officials under the control of the United States. "

Point of law

There are two ways to appeal to the Supreme Court in a case. On one hand, the action may be brought directly before the Court, or it is an appeal against the decision of a lower court.

Since Marbury his complaint lodged directly with the Supreme Court, it had to first determine whether it can be active in the first instance the question of law to negotiate about the case can. However, the Constitution explicitly describes the third item categories in which the Supreme Court has the power to act first instance. In the jurisprudence prevails today largely agreed that the case Marburys fits into any of these categories.

Marburys argument was that the conference with the Judiciary Act the Supreme Court allows first-instance action in adopting a provisional arrangement. Because of this argument, the Court had to clarify two questions:

Credo

The court ruled on February 24, 1803 unanimously ( 4-0), that it has no jurisdiction over the case because the Constitution does not provide for such a case original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court could have followed the well-known already in the 19th century maxim to examine the jurisdiction of the court before the merits. Then he would be able to dismiss the action as inadmissible, without having to devote the politically sensitive issues of substance. However, he proceeded vice versa. Chief Justice John Marshall established by curiam decision, by setting up three legal questions and answered:

The third question concerns the jurisdiction of the court for the lawsuit. Before Marshall replied in the negative, he said yes the first two questions and expressly held that maintain a trust law has been violated by the non-delivery of the certificate of appointment.

To decide whether there is a standardized procedure available for this case, Marshall presented that:

"The government of the United States Has been emphatically termed a government of laws and not of men. It Will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right. "

" The form of government of the United States is strongly defined as governance of laws and not of individuals. You would lose this high reputation, if the laws do not provide remedies for the infringement of a guaranteed right. "

One of the key principles derived from this case is that there must be for each jurisdiction and an appeal which may be exercised in the event of infringement. This is expressed in English with the formula no right without remedy. This fundamental principle of law is reflected in many jurisdictions.

From this principle there is to Marshall for only one exception, if it is " a purely political act is to decide on the government is called upon " to. In these cases, the legal protection is not required. However, as in the case to be decided with respect to the surrender of the certificate of appointment, the legislature has the use of certain acts prescribed by law and clearly the favored individual has a clear interest in the making of the Act, a law must provide a remedy. Marshall held that the delivery of the certificate of appointment is one such action legally offered, and thus the legal Marbury is open to force delivery. By Madison on the order of President Jefferson refused to hand over the deed, he has violated the Court's view against this constitutional principle.

By Marshall answered the first two questions, he could accuse the newly elected government of Jefferson dual legal break. At the same time, he succeeded the former federal President Adams and exhibit themselves as ex-minister a perfect witness. Except for the not consummated for reasons of time handing over the certificate of appointment they had done everything right.

Only after these two questions have been answered to Marshall devoted to the third question, ie whether the action for provisional legal protection to the Supreme Court was the place -like procedure. Marshall was going cautious and replied in the negative. To answer this question Marshall referred to the Judiciary Act, alone could arise the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for this purpose from the. The standard is considered to be not entirely clear, but Marshall put out so that should give the original jurisdiction of the Court of her.

Marshall then looked at the Third Article of the Constitution, which describes the judicial powers of the court both at first and in the last instance and does not contain these same original jurisdiction for provisional legal protection. Marbury had argued that this was harmless, since the provisions of the Constitution should be represented only a basic set of skills to the Congress by law could add more. Marshall but did not agree to this and said that the Congress has no powers, which allow the extension of competence. The Judiciary Act would therefore be contrary to the Constitution in this respect.

At this point, Marshall got to the central for the knock-on effect of the decision point: the contradiction between simple statutory law and constitutional law. He now had to examine what should happen when a federal law is incompatible with the Constitution. In his reply, Marshall noted that " laws which violate the Constitution are unlawful ." The courts are therefore obliged in such cases to adhere to the Constitution. To support this point, Marshall is also related to the nature of the Constitution: " What purpose does a constitution, can ignore the courts? "

"To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is limitation did committed to writing, if thesis limits may, at any time, be passed by Those Intended to be restrained? "

" For what purpose the state power is limited and the purpose for which these restrictions are written down, if these limits may be overridden at any time by those who are to be limited by them [ their powers ]? "

Marshall argued this with the denial of justice ban, which absolutely requires the courts to make such an assessment. Since courts are used to decide on cases, they must also be able to determine which law is applicable. Finally, Marshall also made reference to the oath of office, which requires the maintenance of the Constitution, and the Constitution itself, which is referred to in its text, even within the list of the highest sources of law over the laws of the United States.

• Order of the Court of 22 March 1803 James Madison

Criticism

Legal scholars have put the thought Marshalls in the declaration of unconstitutionality of the Judiciary Act in question. You mean he quote the law so selective that it an ( unconstitutional ) jurisdiction expansion of the Supreme Court should be read. They argue in particular that the Court of the application for provisional legal protection should have followed since the third article of the constitution gave him first-instance jurisdiction in all cases, which concerned " public ministers and consuls ," and that Madison, as Secretary of State and the defendant in this court case, belonging to that group of people.

Doubts are also raised about Marshall's constitutional legal understanding of federal laws. So argues Alexander Bickel, Marshall had an unrealistic and mechanical view of the function of the judiciary; the courts have an absolute duty to each unconstitutional law be annulled. So they had no discretion and should especially do not consider the consequences of their decisions.

As the Constitution itself contains no provisions on the constitutional jurisdiction, critics claim that this is based on a significant misinterpretation of the text. Although could be obtained either from the Constitution itself nor from the English legal tradition, a clear overall picture of the issue of the role of the Supreme Court and for the examination of the supremacy of the Constitution. Marshall had then just as well decide that the courts are the other branches of government ordered the same and each State is responsible for examining the constitutionality in its area of ​​competence itself.

Despite this criticism, the possibility for the court to review the constitutionality of laws, now considered within the American society as an important function of the legal system. The reasoned decision with this priority of the courts and the Judicial Review vouches from today's perspective more legal certainty than the DC -order theory.

Impact and significance

First, the judgment had a strong political impact. Marshall would have been really self-conscious because of the history. Marshall's argument was certainly not always mandatory and partially redundant as obiter dictum. But he succeeded with the decision to take him for important statements without having to risk being accused of manipulation. Had he allowed the claim, impeachment proceedings would have to be feared. If he had been denied the admissibility of the action, he would have a material point must not examine further. Although Marshall could not ensure that decision, that Marbury receives his certificate of appointment. So, however, he succeeded on the one to calm the applied Federalist Party. He has also strengthened its judgment the Supreme Court, established by the primacy of constitutional jurisdiction. This primacy of constitutional jurisdiction was by no means self-evident. The anchoring of the Judicial Review is so far regarded as a genuine contribution of America to the modern constitutional state.