Marbury v. Madison Brief Facts of the case William Marbury was appointed Justice of the Peace in Washington D. C. by President Adams and conformed by the senate on March 3 rd. John Marshall (the Secretary of State during the Adams administration) failed to deliver the commission of Marbury’s office until the new administration took over. Then new President Jefferson directed his Secretary of State, James Madison to withhold Marbury’s commission.
Marbury proceeded to file suit against Madison, going directly to the Supreme Court. Issues Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall signified “three questions,” or main issued pertaining to the case in his opinion. The first issue concerns the right of the applicant to the position demanded. The second issues relates to the laws of the country awarding a remedy, should the right of the individual be deemed violated.
The third issue concerns the right the Supreme Court has to issue a mandamus, basically this issue relates to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Decision The Supreme Court decided the rule must be discharged. Reasons The 2 d section of the 2 d article of the Constitution which describes the appointment of a judge as appointment by the President and advise and consent by the Senate. Since the commission has been signed by the President the appointment has been made.
Therefore, Marbury does have a right to the commission he desires, and that right being withheld is a violation of his rights. Pertaining to the second issue, regarding the laws of the country affording him a remedy, Chief Justice Marshall finds the laws in favor of Marbury. He concedes that the Executive branch has, “certain important political powers, in the exercise or which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country.” However, he goes on to conclude that where individual rights depend upon the performance o that duty and a right has been injured, he has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy. The third issue appears to be the one that caused the most drastic results. This issue regards the jurisdiction of the court to issue a mandate. This seems to concern whether the Supreme Court is just an appellate court of if it has some original jurisdiction.
HISTORY OF LAWS TARGETING GAMBLING United States Regulations During the United States’ history, there have been many attempts to regulate gambling, however, in the early 1960’s a series of laws were enacted to combat ever increasing organized crime activity and racketeering. In 1961, Congress enacted the Wire Act as part of a series of antiracketeering laws. The Wire Act was intended to assist the ...
Judge Marshal found his justification for original jurisdiction in the Constitution. Throughout the opinion he went on to prove the legitimacy of the Constitution as the power that supersedes all the branches of the government. The Constitution was very broad about the powers of the Supreme Court. Because of this vagueness the Supreme Court was forced to determine what the framers of the Constitution intended so far as the jurisdiction of the court was concerned. Since they justified their case with interpreting the intentions of the framers, they were allotted the power of judicial review. It is through this argument that the practice of judicial review was initiated.
Although, this is not one of the original aspects of the case, it soon became the most important reaction from the decision.