Marbury v. Madison

The plaintiff, in this case, is Marbury, the defendant is Madison, and the Chief Justice is John Marshall. The issue, in this case, is a judicial appointment. This judicial appointment involved two presidents. The president who issued the judicial appointments was John Adams. When Washington decided not to become president, Adams and Jefferson ran for the second term. At that time, Jefferson lost. In 1800, Jefferson defeated Adams and became president. Therefore, this case was the Federalist Party versus the Republican Party. The Federalist Party appointed a group of judges (“midnight judges”) after losing the election to keep their policies sustainable. In fact, these midnight judges went through the process, the president signed it, Congress agreed to it, and Marshall approved it. At last of the day, there were still a dozen appointments to be issued, yet by this time Adams left. As soon as Jefferson became president, he let the Secretary of State Madison withhold the appointment that had not been issued and did not allow them to reissue. Marbury was angry, and he sued. The holding was Marbury should get the appointment, but the Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to force Madison to give the appointment to Marbury. Marshall reinforced the Supreme court’s power by establishing judicial review.

Marbury v. Madison was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case. I believe that the court made the exactly correct ruling. When Adams was still the president, Marshall agreed to give an appointment to Marbury. However, the situation is very complicated, Marshal cannot just give the decision that Madison should give Marbury the appointment. As Judiciary Act of 1789, Section 13 points
out: The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states in the cases hereinafter specially provided for and shall have the power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principle and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office under the authority of the United States. It seems like the supreme court can issue writs of mandamus to persons holding office. However, this statement is not consistent with the constitution. As U.S Constitution, Article III, Section 2 mentions: In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as Congress shall make. Marbury’s case was unrelated to public ministers or either state party. Therefore, the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to force Madison to give an appointment to Marbury, because it went beyond the limits set in the Constitution. Besides, the Supreme Court established the principle of judicial review. Marshall claims that “ It is emphatically the province and dusty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is”. This case is a dilemma for Marshall because he’s a federalist in politics, but he cannot help Marbury. His ruling not only resolved the disputes peacefully but also asserted the Supreme Court’s authority.