Marbury Vs. Madison (1803): Judicial Review

Reflection # 1: Marbury vs Madison (1803)

What is Judicial review?

Judicial review is the court's primary check on the legislative and executive branches. In other words, judicial review is a part of the unwritten constitution and grants the power to decide on the constitutionality of congressional laws. Additionally, judicial review was established in 1803 as a result of the significant case called Marbury v. Madison. There are a number of reasons that help illustrate the importance of judicial review. For example, the judicial review safeguards the constitution’s premise of supremacy, it promotes federal equilibrium by preserving balance, protects the rights of citizens, and also protects the idea of judicial independence.

What is the impact

Madison is best known as the landmark case in which the U.S. Supreme Court established judicial review. As a result of this case, the federal judiciary was strengthened, thus empowering federal courts to declare legislation, as well as executive and administrative actions, unconstitutional. The court consisted of six men, chief justice John Marshall, justice Alfred Moore, justice William Cushing, justice Bushrod Washington, and justice Samuel Chase. Furthermore, chief justice John Marshall remarkably won the war at the end of the case by establishing the supreme court as the final arbiter of the meaning of the constitution. “Marshall declared for the first time an act of Congress signed into law by the president as unconstitutional. The right of the courts to pass on the constitutionality of laws. The principle of judicial review was not new, it had been exercised before at the state level. In Marbury v. Madison, John Marshall extended it to encompass federal law. In so doing, he established the right of the supreme court of the United States to say what the constitution means and what it means not to the government of the states and to the federal government as well.”

Madison to be created, rooted from a statement that Marbury frustratingly reported to Mr. Wagner. “The withholding of an official document of the United States, a commission of audits is a crime for which a man is punishable under the law, even if that man is the secretary of state.” (Marbury, 6:50). When the case was presented to the six men on the court, they all agreed that section thirteen of the judiciary act of 1789 was the reason for the case to be heard. However, all men knew that they were in the midst of a battle and understood that it was one that they could not win. “If we find for Mr. Marbury and order Mr. Madison to produce this Ackerson commission, what will happen? Nothing. Mr. Madison will simply ignore us as we have no way to enforce our decisions we shall have established ourselves as an irrelevancy. If on the other hand, we find against Mr. Marbury, it will be said that we have vindicated the president because we fear his anger.” (Patterson, 17:47). However, Marbury and chief justice John Marshall both claimed that not even the president or the secretary of state are above the law. Later on, a point is brought up by justice Samuel Chase where he states, “the commission is valid the moment that it is signed and sealed.” (Chase, 21:50). Eventually, there were three questions presented. Has Marbury a right to the commission that he is claiming? The men on the court all