Marbury Vs. Madison In 1803: Judicial Review

Judicial review wasn’t just advocated by Hamilton, the concept was put into practice in many of the important Supreme Court cases both in the founding era and modern times. In Marbury v Madison in 1803, judicial review was used in order to strike down an unconstitutional act of Congress. Marbury v Madison is an interesting case because, in striking down the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Court also struck down its own jurisdiction over the case. However, this did not end as a needless debate. The case was one of the first that solidified judicial review as a legitimate power of the judicial branch and made it known that the Court’s power could not be extended beyond what is granted in the Constitution. Justice Marshall wrote in the majority opinion

Departmentalism is a completely different way of interpreting the Constitution than judicial supremacy. Thomas Jefferson and his supporters were the first to develop what is now known as departmentalism. According to Jefferson, the Constitution gives no authority to the judicial branch to determine what it means for any other branch. Departmentalism gives each branch a check on their power. Since lawmaking and execution is divided between the legislature and the executive branch, these separated and shared powers allow the separate branches to interpret the Constitution in regards to their duties. John Yoo of Berkeley Law supports judicial review as a legitimate power of the branch, but not judicial supremacy. For Yoo, the Constitution creates departmentalism, not judicial supremacy. He states that “the constitutional text and structure create the duty of judicial review in the courts in the same way that it places the duty on the other branches to interpret the Constitution while performing their roles. ” Instead of the federal courts deciding for everyone what the Constitution means for all branches, each branch has its own separate but equal right to interpret the Constitution in cases that involve that particular branch. Therefore, Congress can interpret the Necessary and Proper Clause in Article I of the Constitution because it pertains to the legislative branch’s powers. The President can interpret what the Constitution says about foreign affairs powers granted to the President. At the same time, however, judicial review would still be in place whenever the cases come to the Supreme Court in order to clarify what is necessary to be clarified. Departmentalism emphasizes the constitutional separation of powers. Each branch has its own duties to execute, and each branch has separate but equal powers. In Immigration and Naturalization Service v Chadha in