Can someone briefly explain to me the important points and significance of Marbury v. Madison (1803)?

Answer 1

This is the court case that John Jay used to show the courts had the right to review federal statutes and find them either Constitutional or unconstitutional.

Basically, the case was about some "midnight appointments" outgoing President John Adams made just before he left office. Mr. Marbury had been appointed Justice of the Peace for DC, but his commission had not been delivered to him before Jefferson took office. Jefferson ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison, to withhold the undelivered commissions. Marbury and some others sued, and the case eventually came before the Supreme Court, who decided with Jefferson on the matter.

This case cemented the powers of the courts as outlined in Article 3 of the Constitution by putting it to practical application.

Answer 2

Very simply put: Article III of the Constitution: It is the Status of the Power of Judicial Review.

Supreme Court can hear a case: (1) filed directly in the Supreme Court; or (2) filed in lower court, and appealing all the way up to the Supreme Court. The first is an exercise of the Court's original jurisdiction; the second is appellate jurisdiction.

Because Marbury filed his petition for writ of mandamus directly in the Supreme Court, the Court needed to be able to exercise original jurisdiction over the case in order to have the power to hear it.

Chief Justice Marshall first examined the Judiciary Act of 1789 and determined that the Act purports to give the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus.

Marshall then looked to Article III of the Constitution, which defines the Supreme Court's original and appellate jurisdictions . Marbury argued that the Constitution was intended only to set a floor for original jurisdiction that Congress could add to.

Marshall disagreed and held that Congress does not have the power to modify the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.

Consequently, Marshall finds that the Constitution and the Judiciary Act conflict. Marshall found that Acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution are not law and the Courts are bound instead to follow the Constitution

Marbury's argument was that the Judiciary Act of 1789, granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over petitions for writs of mandamus.

Does Article III of the Constitution create a "floor" for original jurisdiction, that Congress can add to, or does it create an exhaustive list that Congress can't modify at all?

If Article III's original jurisdiction is an exhaustive list, but Congress tries to modify it anyway, who wins that conflict, Congress or the Constitution?

More important, who is supposed to decide who wins?

In his answer to this last question, Marshall formalized the notion of judicial review.

In short, the constitutional issue of Marbury v. Madison is whether Congress can change the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The answer to that is NO. What would be the purpose for continuing Article III of the Consittuiton if that was the case.

The Court rendered a unanimous (4-0) decision on February 24, 1803. Chief Justice Marshall wrote the opinion of the court. Marshall presents the case as raising three distinct questions:

Did Marbury have a right to the petition?
Do the laws of the country give Marbury a legal remedy?
Is asking the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus the correct legal remedy?

Marshall quickly answers the first two questions affirmatively. Marshall finds that the failure to deliver Marbury's commission was "violative of a vested legal right."

In deciding whether Marbury has a remedy, Marshall states

"The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right."

A key legal principle established by Marbury is that for every violation of a vested legal right, there must be a legal remedy.

To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained.

Since it is a court's duty to decide cases, courts have to be able to decide what law applies to each case. Therefore, if two laws conflict with each other, a court must decide which law applies

This is in fact what Article III gives to the court. The power to decide law. And since Judges are sworn to uphold the Constitution, can they do any less than make those decisions.

I have always felt that Justice (The Supreme Court) must be totally blind to the Congressional Intent and look only at Constitutional Intent. When Congress passes a law that is meant to bypass the Constitution of the United States.

hope this helps a little.

Answer 3

okay, you have the history of the case above.

John Marshall, the third chief justice, was in a fight with Jefferson. If he said that Marbury had the right to his appointment, Jefferson had already said that he would ignore the order. If he said that Marbury didn't have the right to the commission, then he was saying that the Judiciary Act and the Supreme Court were meaningless. Instead, he said that Marbury was entitled to his commission, but that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over that matter, and that it was a matter for a lower federal court, not the Supreme Court. thus, he was able to disagree with Jefferson without forcing Jefferson into a stand off.

It established Judicial review, which is the right of the Supreme Court to interpret the law and declare laws and acts unconstitutional. It was the first time the Supreme Court disagreed with another branch.

Answer 4

The significance of Marbury v. Madison is that it caused the supreme court to be established.

Answer 5

It is a landmark case in United States law. It is the basis for the exercise of judicial review of Federal statutes by the United States Supreme Court under Article Three of the United States Constitution.

Answer 6

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (a million Cranch) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in united states of america regulation. It formed the inspiration for the workout of judicial overview interior of u.s. under Article III of the form. this project resulted from a petition to the appropriate courtroom by ability of William Marbury, who have been appointed as magistrate in the District of Columbia by ability of President John Adams presently in the past leaving workplace, yet whose value became into no longer delivered as required by ability of John Marshall, Adams' Secretary of State. while Thomas Jefferson assumed workplace, he ordered the hot Secretary of State, James Madison, to withhold Marbury's and a selection of of alternative different adult men's commissions. Being no longer able to anticipate the appointed workplaces devoid of the value records, Marbury and 3 others petitioned the courtroom to stress Madison to offer the value to Marbury. The appropriate courtroom denied Marbury's petition, protecting that the statute upon which he based his declare became into unconstitutional. The courtroom held that section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the quantity it purports to enhance the unique jurisdiction of the appropriate courtroom previous that accepted by ability of the form. Congress can not bypass rules that are opposite to the form, and that's the placement of the Federal courts to interpret what the form facilitates.