A Case Of Marbury V. Madison Chief Justice John Marshall

In the case of Marbury v. Madison Chief Justice John Marshall utilized his power in a legal but cunning way to alter the balance of power between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. Justice Marshall used his opinion in the courts to manipulate the Constitution, creating what we know as judicial review. Because the Constitution does not explicitly state what judicial review is Justice Marshall is known for creating it. In an effort to resolve the case, Justice Marshall answered three questions supported by strong arguments. The wide acceptance of his doctrine created judicial review-- the Supreme Court’s ability to uphold or deny the constitutionality of congressional or executive actions.

Stillion (2007) notes,

Marshall used common ideas to hold off on granting the mandamus while simultaneously criticizing the branches of government. Marshall begins his argument by accommodating the known power of the executive and legislative branches as well as individual rights. He then transitioned towards the rights of individuals and the Constitution. Finally, the divinity of the Constitution allowed for a distinction between government power and individual rights, which provided the Supreme Court’s final decision in the

Issuing Marbury the commission was the only remedy and appropriate course of action. The only question that remained was, did the Supreme Court have the power to issue Marbury the writ? Marshall used Section 13 of the Judicial Act of 1789 to demonstrate how the Constitution gave the court power to issue writs of mandamus. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution stated that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in "all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party" (Stillion, 2007, p. 13). Original jurisdiction—the power to hear cases directly in the Supreme Court—was the only matter addressed by the Constitution itself. Marshall interpreted that granting Marbury a writ of mandamus under the Judicial Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because it violated the Constitution’s limited grant of original jurisdiction to the Court in Article III, Section 2. McBride (2006) notes, “And when an act of Congress is in conflict with the Constitution, it is, Marshall said, the obligation of the Court to uphold the Constitution because, by Article VI, it is the "supreme law of the land." (para. 4). Through savvy argumentation Justice Marshall exerted the power of the court through what is now known as judicial