Marbury v. Madison Essay Sample

the US Supreme Court involves the declaration of a particular action as unconstitutional. This confers upon the court the authority to supervise or nullify any actions of one government entity against another.

Despite winning the 1800 presidential election against John Adams, Thomas Jefferson did not take office as the first U.S President until March 4th.

In 1801, the Federalist and Adams were in power until the passage of the Judiciary Act. The Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which modified the Act of 1789 to form it.

Before the end of his presidential term, Adman made a move against the future of democratic government by appointing 42 Justices of Peace Offices and 16 Federal Circuit Judges through the Judiciary Act of 1801. These appointments, all located in Alexander and Washington counties, were highly criticized (Coxe, P. 302-335). One among these Federal Peace Judges was Marbury, a moneyman from Maryland.

During Adams' presidential term, Maryland's policies and support contributed to its closeness to him. William Marbury was appointed as a justice of the peace in the Columbia District for a term of five years. Although the Senate approved the appointments the next day, committees still needed to be delivered for them to take effect.

Upon assuming the presidency, Thomas Jefferson quickly replaced Secretary of State James Madison and prevented Attorney General Levi Lincoln from presenting outstanding assignments. According to Jefferson, these actions were necessary due to the untimely circumstances of Randolph.

P. 11-19) There is a notable point to make that certain committees remained present, indicating that it was impossible to present them all before the end of Adams' presidential term. These assignments were purely routine. Following

Adams' presidential term, the Democratic-Republican Congress overturned the previous Judiciary Act of 1802.

As per the Act of 1789, there were two additional one-year sessions for the subdivision of judicial, in addition to the original Judiciary. In Marbury v. Madison, the main issue was that there are only three ways in which a case can be heard in the Supreme Court. Firstly, by filing directly in the Supreme Court. Secondly, by filing in the lower federal court for territorial cases. Lastly, by filing in a state court and appealing from the highest court of that state. The first option is within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court while the latter two are within the appellant jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for cases involving federal law.

Marbury filed his request for a mandamus directly with the Supreme Court and, as a result, the Court needed to assert original jurisdiction over the case in order to hear it (Randolph, P. 11-19). According to Marbury, his request was based on the Judiciary Act of 1789.

William Marbury’s statement regarding the United States Congress granting the Supreme Court original legal power over mandamus petitions led to various issues that were addressed by the Supreme Court. Among them was an inquiry into whether the Constitution’s Article III established a “floor” for this power.

The text pertains to Article III's list of powers that the United States Congress may increase or modify. The query is whether Congress has the ability to create an inclusive list that it cannot modify or if there are no limits to its modification. Another question is who prevails in a conflict between Congress and the Constitution if the former

seeks to change Article III's original power. Lastly, the text explores this issue in depth.

According to Nelson's book (p. 101-135), the question is about who is claimed to have achieved success. The United States Supreme Court affirms the importance of judicial review in its response to this inquiry. Specifically, the matter of constitutional law addressed in Marbury v. is validated.

Madison's goal was to determine if the United States Congress could expand the Supreme Court's original legal power (Tushnet. P. 185-205). The tribunal made a unanimous decision on February 24, 1803 with all four judges ruling in favor without any dissenting opinions.

According to all the judges, Williams Marbury had the right to receive the committee, but the Supreme Court did not have the power to make Madison present the committee to Williams Marbury or anyone else. The legal documents explaining the reasons for the court's decision were written by Chief Justice John Marshall. The case presented three questions, as posed by Chief Justice John Marshall (Nelson, P. 101-135). Firstly, did Williams Marbury have the right to receive the committee? Secondly, did state law practices provide Marbury with a legal means to recover a right? Lastly, was demanding a mandamus from the Supreme Court the proper legal means to recover a right? Chief Justice John Marshall answered both of these questions positively.

According to Tushnet (p. 185-205), John Marshall determined that failing to appear before the committee constituted a violation of a legal right already established. This decision was supported by Chief Justice John Marshall's strong statements asserting the fairness of the ruling regarding the final issue being debated in the U.S.

The US Constitution is considered the primary

law of the state, and any legislative action that goes against it is deemed invalid.

Nelson explains that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, meaning any legislative act that contradicts the Constitution is considered invalid.

There are two books mentioned in this text. The first one is "Marbury v. Madison: the beginnings and bequest of judicial review" by William Edward, which was published in 2008 by University Press of Kansas and has an ISBN of either 0700610618 or 9780700610617. This book covers pages 101-135. The second book is "An essay on judicial power and unconstitutional legislation: being a commentary on parts of the Constitution of the United States" by Brinton Coxe, which was published in 2005 by The Law Book Exchange, Ltd with an ISBN of 1584775343.

The book "Arguing Marbury versus Madison" by Mark Tushnet, published by Stanford University Press in 2005 with ISBN number 0804752273, is referenced on pages 302 to 335. The book's identifier is 9781584775348.The book "Marbury V. Madison: The Court's Foundation Supreme Court Milestones" was written by Corinne Naden and published in 2004 by Marshall Cavendish. It has an ISBN of 0761418407 and includes information on pages 185-205. The colors associated with the book are blue and rose. The book's unique identification code is 9780804752275.The Rosen Publishing Group's book "Marbury V. Madison: The New Supreme Court Gets More Power Life in the new American nation" was written by Randolph Ryan in 2003 and has an ISBN of 0823940349. It is located on pages 90-120 and has a code of 9780761418405.The content within the HTML tag states "9780823940349 P. 11-19."