How would you brief Marbury v. Madison?

Question

U.S. Supreme Court. The facts, the issue and the opinions.

Answer 1

the ultimate outcome was the acceptance of judicial oversite over the legislative and executive branches of government.

Answer 2

There were three issues in Marbury v. Madison. There's undoubtedly much more that could be discussed than what's found here. Here's my old brief on it for parts 2 & 3; I rewrote the facts & Issue #1 (w/o re-reading the case first; don't blame me for any errors in this answer).

Facts:
Marbury was promised a commission by John Adams shortly before the end of his second term. Thomas Jefferson, through his secretary of state, James Madison, denied him that post. Marbury has been denied the papers that entitled to his post. He seeks a writ of mandamus (a court order directing someone to do something).

Issue #1: Is Marbury entitled to his commission?
Yes. Once the president signs a commission & the secretary of state affixes the seal, the commission is complete. Marbury has been appointed, and (setting aside the question of whether the president can fire him immediately afterward) the president doesn't have the power to reconsider the appointment. (My brief here is really bad.)

Issue #2: If he does have a right to the post, does the law provide a remedy?
It’s the basis of civil liberties that, when a person rights have been impaired, that he has a right to the law’s protection. If there are certain acts that are examinable by courts and some that are not, then there must be some basis in the country’s laws. POTUS is invested w/certain powers, and can appoint officers to carry out his authority. These officers are agents to POTUS’ principal, and POTUS’ discretion can’t be controlled by any other power. When an officer does something that’s w/in his legal & constitutional discretion to do so, then that action derives from POTUS’ power to do things, and that power can’t be abridged. However, when a duty has been imposed by law, and individual’s rights depend on an officer carrying out that duty, then the injured party has a right to resort to the law. Since, once Jefferson signed the commission, they were under an obligation to turn over the commission, the court affords him a remedy. The executive can not forbid him the commission he is legally entitled to.

Issue #3: Is he entitled to a remedy? The answer depends on two sub issues.

3.1 The nature of the writ. To get a writ of mandamus, the officer to whom it is directed must be proper, and the person applying for it must have no other specific & legal remedy.
The document must be delivered to a person to whom it can be legally delivered: It may seem, at first glance, that when cases like this come up, it’s the judiciary screwing w/the executive’s cabinet. There’s no meddling here though, b/c the document sought is one of public record. There’s nothing that says the sec’y of state can hide a commission or that forbids a court from issuing a writ against the person. There must also be no other specific & legal remedy, but that isn’t addressed.

3.2 Does the Supreme Court have the authority to issue a writ?
The Supreme Court was vested with the power to issue writs of mandamus (like the one sought in this case) to people holding offices under the authority of the US by the Judiciary Act of 1789, § 13. The sec’y of state is just such a person, so unless the law is unconstitutional, they can issue the writ. The Constitution vests the supreme judicial authority in the Supreme Court & Congress the power to create inferior courts. This case arises under a law of the US, so the court should have jurisdiction.

However, the constitution says that the supreme court has original jurisdiction in those cases involving ambassadors (etc.) & that in all other cases, it has appellate authority. It was argued that the legislature has the right to enlarge that jurisdiction, but there’s no language indicating that they have that right. If they can change the jurisdictional authority of the court by a bill, then there’s no point in having the language in the constitution at all. Thus, for the court to issue a writ of mandamus, it must be due to their appellate authority. Thus, the authority granted by the Judiciary Act is at odds with the Constitution.

So what happens now that we have a contradiction b/w an act of Congress and the constitution? Given the choices, the court decides to elevate the Constitution above other acts of Congress b/c otherwise, the Constitution isn’t an enduring document, but rather the same as any other act of Congress. That being the case, laws contrary to the Constitution are not laws. If a law is void, what do the courts have to do about it? Do they have to enforce the law anyway? It is the role of the judiciary to interpret the law, and when they conflict, to resolve said conflict. Thus, if the Constitution is to be the supreme law of the land, then the Constitution takes precedence. The Constitution itself says it’s the supreme law of the land. Thus b/c they don’t have the authority to hear the case, they can’t issue the writ. They also declare § 13 o/t Judiciary Act of 1789 to be void.

(Again, don't blame me if your con law professor yells at you for being totally wrong. I'm just giving you my old, possibly error-riddled brief.)

Answer 3

The Supreme Court has final authority on issues of Constitutional interpretation and meaning.

Answer 4

The Supreme court needs to be a co-equal branch of government and as one other check/balance to the other branches. Also, it needs to at times adjudicate impasses between the other branches.

Lastly, Legislative branch writes the laws, Executive branch executes those, Judiciary needs to ensure the other two are writing laws that don't violate the constitution.

Answer 5

Marbury V Madison Legal Brief

Answer 6

With Fruit of the Looms.