In what way did the marbury decision enhance the system of checks and balances provided for in the Constituti?

Question

Marbury Case

Answer 1

The Marbury decision is not, by any means, the only example of a starting point in analyzing the system of checks and balances. I don't know that name or the year of the case, but during that same time period (1800 to 1809) the Supreme Court also struck down a state law. The Court has been FAR busier with striking down state laws than in striking down federal laws. In every decade (year ending in 0 to year ending in 9) from 1810 until now the Court has struck down many more state laws that federal laws.

Now here's an interesting question: what does this system -- federal courts striking down state laws -- have to do with "checks and balances" between 3 (allegedly) equal branches of the federal government?

Answer 2

Three ways.

One, it determined that because the Constitution set forth specific procedures by which it could be amended, the Constitution would preempt any federal law that conflicted with it. This was because the federal law, if it didn't actually amend the Constitution, could not remain in conflict with it and still be valid. So, it changed the balance from federal laws equaling the Constitution to federal laws being subject to and preempted by the Constitution.

Two, the Court gave itself the power to declare laws unconstitutional. This gave the Court significant power relative to Congress, because it allowed them to say that federal laws where invalid under the constitution, not just in conflict with the constitution, because of the first point above.

The third major check is that the court ruled it (the Court) cannot tell the executive branch how to enforce the law. As long as the executive branch was acting within the scope of the law, the manner of its enforcement action was not subject to judicial mandate. Only when the executive was acting outside of or in violation of the law could the Court step in.

So, it brought the Court into more parity with Congress, while weakening its position relative to the executive.

Answer 3

From glancing over the case, it appears there was a constitutional admendment conflict whereas the executive office can not be restrained by the courts as long as it obeys the law.

Answer 4

It secured the courts power of Judaical review, its ability to uphold or deny the constitutionally of congressional or executive action, made the court co-equal Branch of the federal govt.

Answer 5

in many ways