{"id":1378,"date":"2017-01-09T19:42:39","date_gmt":"2017-01-09T19:42:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/montgomerycollege-masterybusinesslaw2\/?post_type=chapter&p=1378"},"modified":"2017-01-09T19:42:39","modified_gmt":"2017-01-09T19:42:39","slug":"marbury-v-madison-who-makes-the-definitive-interpretation-of-the-constitution","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/montgomerycollege-masterybusinesslaw2\/chapter\/marbury-v-madison-who-makes-the-definitive-interpretation-of-the-constitution\/","title":{"raw":"Marbury v. Madison: Who makes the definitive interpretation of the Constitution?","rendered":"Marbury v. Madison: Who makes the definitive interpretation of the Constitution?"},"content":{"raw":"

Marbury v. Madison (1803)<\/h1>\nSection 2 Clause 2 Article III of the Constitution states:\n
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 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 the Congress shall make.<\/div><\/blockquote>\n
\n

The Case<\/h2>\n
\n
\n\nWhen James Madison, Jefferson's secretary of state, refused to deliver several commissions for new justices, they petitioned the Supreme Court to compel the executive to act. Marshall's written decision on behalf of the unanimous Court found that the petitioners were entitled to their commissions, but refused to take the legal action that they wanted. Rather, the court declared that the Judiciary Act of 1789<\/span>, which had given the court such power, was inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore invalid.\n\n[caption id=\"attachment_892\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"300\"]\"Chief<\/a> Chief Justice John Marshall[\/caption]\n\nThis was a complex decision. In the specific matter before the Court, the decision limited<\/strong> judicial power. However, the more fundamental issue that it decided was to insist on the court's authority to declare an act of Congress void if found to be in conflict with the Constitution. As Chief Justice John Marshall explained,\n
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.\n\nSo, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.\n\nThose, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law [e.g., the statute or treaty].\n\nThis doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.<\/div><\/blockquote>\nSince Marbury<\/i> v. Madison<\/i> the Supreme Court has been the final decision maker regarding the Constitutionality of Congressional legislation.\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The Impact<\/h2>\nMarbury v. Madison<\/i> was one of the most important decisions in U.S. judicial history, because it legitimized the ability of the Supreme Court to judge the consitutionality of acts of the president or Congress.\n\nhttp:\/\/youtu.be\/KwciUVLdSPk\n\n\u00a0","rendered":"

Marbury v. Madison (1803)<\/h1>\n

Section 2 Clause 2 Article III of the Constitution states:<\/p>\n

\n
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 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 the Congress shall make.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n

The Case<\/h2>\n
\n
\n

When James Madison, Jefferson’s secretary of state, refused to deliver several commissions for new justices, they petitioned the Supreme Court to compel the executive to act. Marshall’s written decision on behalf of the unanimous Court found that the petitioners were entitled to their commissions, but refused to take the legal action that they wanted. Rather, the court declared that the Judiciary Act of 1789<\/span>, which had given the court such power, was inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore invalid.<\/p>\n

\"Chief<\/a><\/p>\n

Chief Justice John Marshall<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

This was a complex decision. In the specific matter before the Court, the decision limited<\/strong> judicial power. However, the more fundamental issue that it decided was to insist on the court’s authority to declare an act of Congress void if found to be in conflict with the Constitution. As Chief Justice John Marshall explained,<\/p>\n

\n
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.<\/p>\n

So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.<\/p>\n

Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law [e.g., the statute or treaty].<\/p>\n

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.<\/p><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Since Marbury<\/i> v. Madison<\/i> the Supreme Court has been the final decision maker regarding the Constitutionality of Congressional legislation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The Impact<\/h2>\n

Marbury v. Madison<\/i> was one of the most important decisions in U.S. judicial history, because it legitimized the ability of the Supreme Court to judge the consitutionality of acts of the president or Congress.<\/p>\n