Marbury Vs. Madison?

Question

Can someone summarize the case of Marbury Vs. Madison for me?

Answer 1

The case of Marbury versus Madison involved a last minute appointment
by the out going President John Adams of William Marbury to the
District of Columbia's Justice of the Peace. The incoming President,
James Madison, did not carry out John Adam's appointment, and as a
result William Marbury sued James Madison. The relationship between
this case and the establishment of Judicial Review lies in the Supreme
Court's decision: that although Marbury is entitled to the appointed
commission, the Supreme Court can not forceably appoint Marbury to
said commission, as Article 3 of the United States Constitution
expressly denies the Supreme Court such powers.

Answer 2

William Marbury was given a commission to be Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia by John Adams just before Jefferson became president. Once Jefferson took office, he instructed James Madison, the Sect. of State, to withhold the appointment. Marbury took his complaint to the Supreme Court, which up to that time had really done nothing. This established the precident of "Petitioning the Court" for rulings which we enjoy today. Marbury lost the ruling, some say, because Jefferson would have ignored it anyway and the court was afraid that this would errode their already small influence.

Answer 3

judiciary review... adams appoints mid night judges,.. medison secretary of state doesn't sign contracts
marbury sues him
marshall..(supreme court judge) says that murbury can't be appointed because those contracts were uncostitutional so every law that passes has to be jecked by supreme court so that it van be decided if it's constitutional or not

Answer 4

It's why we have Judicial review, which is why it's mainly important.

Answer 5

U.S. Supreme Court
MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
5 U.S. 137 (Cranch)

WILLIAM MARBURY
v.
JAMES MADISON, Secretary of State of the United States.

February Term, 1803

AT the December term 1801, William Marbury, Dennis Ramsay, Robert Townsend Hooe, and William Harper, by their counsel [5 U.S. 137, 138] severally moved the court for a rule to James Madison, secretary of state of the United States, to show cause why a mandamus should not issue commanding him to cause to be delivered to them respectively their several commissions as justices of the peace in the district of Columbia.

This motion was supported by affidavits of the following facts: that notice of this motion had been given to Mr. Madison; that Mr. Adams, the late president of the United States, nominated the applicants to the senate for their advice and consent to be appointed justices of the peace of the district of Columbia; that the senate advised and consented to the appointments; that commissions in due form were signed by the said president appointing them justices, &c. and that the seal of the United States was in due form affixed to the said commissions by the secretary of state; that the applicants have requested Mr. Madison to deliver them their said commissions, who has not complied with that request; and that their said commissions are withheld from them; that the applicants have made application to Mr. Madison as secretary of state of the United States at his office, for information whether the commissions were signed and sealed as aforesaid; that explicit and satisfactory information has not been given in answer to that inquiry, either by the secretary of state, or any officer in the department of state; that application has been made to the secretary of the senate for a certificate of the nomination of the applicants, and of the advice and consent of the senate, who has declined giving such a certificate; whereupon a rule was made to show cause on the fourth day of this term. This rule having been duly served-- [5 U.S. 137, 139] Mr. Jacob Wagner and Mr. Daniel Brent, who had been summoned to attend the court, and were required to give evidence, objected to be sworn, alleging that they were clerks in the department of state, and not bound to disclose any facts relating to the business or transactions of the office.

The court ordered the witnesses to be sworn, and their answers taken in writing; but informed them that when the questions were asked they might state their objections to answering each particular question, if they had any.

Mr. Lincoln, who had been the acting secretary of state, when the circumstances stated in the affidavits occurred, was called upon to give testimony. He objected to answering. The questions were put in writing.

The court said there was nothing confidential required to be disclosed. If there had been, he was not obliged to answer it, and if he thought any thing was communicated to him confidentially he was not bound to disclose, nor was he obliged to state any thing which would criminate himself.

The questions argued by the counsel for the relators were, 1. Whether the supreme court can award the writ of mandamus in any case. 2. Whether it will lie to a secretary of state, in any case whatever. 3. Whether in the present case the court may award a mandamus to James Madison, secretary of state.

[5 U.S. 137, 153]