Please explain to me marbury v. madison and the establishment of judicial review

Dear jackieojr:

Thanks for your question. Marbury versus Madison is the case that
first detailed the Supreme Court's power of Judicial Review. The power
of judicial review gives the Supreme Court the right to strike down
any law that is found in conflict with the United States Constitution.
From ConstitutionCenter.org:

"But the case most frequently cited in connection with judicial review
powers is the Supreme Court's 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison. In
declaring part of a federal statute null and void on the ground that
it conflicted with the Constitution, Chief Justice John Marshall
articulated a detailed doctrine of judicial review, and concluded that
the Constitution implicitly grants to the Supreme Court the power to
invalidate any law that, in the Court's opinion, violates the
Constitution."

Source: ConstitutionCenter.org
[ http://www.constitutioncenter.org/sections/basics/basic_1d.asp ]

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.

Source: InfoPlease.com
[ http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0831715.html ]

A detailed examination of the very issue you are interested in is
available here, in an article entitled "MARBURY V. MADISON
AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW" by Megan Nichols:
[ http://cumber.edu/acad/history/MeganNichols97.htm ]


Additional Links:

A Summary of Marbury versus Madison and its effects:
[ http://www.lawstudentparadise.com/conlaw/marbury.htm ]

Judicial Review and the Supreme Court:
[ http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/judicialrev.htm
]

Columbia Encyclopedia Entry: Marbury versus Madison:
[ http://www.bartleby.com/65/ma/Marburyv.html ]


Google Search Terms Used:

marbury madison judicial review
[ ://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&querytime=AF-E&q=marbury+madison+judicial+review
]

I hope this helps! If you neeed any clarifications, please don't
hesitate to ask. I would be more than happy to assist you further.

Best Regards,
blader-ga

---

Request for Answer Clarification by jackieojr-ga on 07 Jun 2002 11:26 PDT

thanks for the great research. Thing is I've seen those sites and I
don't really understand. I just need a simple explanation of the main
points (think 7th grade not beginning law school) I'm sorry I wasn't
clearer before.

---

Clarification of Answer by blader-ga on 07 Jun 2002 11:52 PDT

Dear jackieojr:

First my apologies and thanks to darthcow for pointing out that
glaring error. James Madison was the incoming President Jefferson's
Secretary of State, not the President! I scanned through that
infoplease.com article a bit too fast.

Here's a simple explanation of the main point of Marbury versus
Madison:

President John Adams gave an last minute appointment before leaving
the office to William Marbury as an official in the District of
Columbia. The incoming Secretary of State James Madison who was
responsible for these appointments back then, didn't carry out that
appointment. William Marbury sued James Madison and tried to get the
Supreme Court to forceably appoint Marbury to the position.

The Supreme Court decided that to forceably appoint Marbury to the
position is something that the Constitution doesn't allow the Supreme
Court to do. In making this decision, the Supreme Court established
their power of "judicial review", which allows them to strike down
laws that they found unconstitutional.

As an analogy, it's like Bill Clinton (John Adams) appointing you
(William Marbury) to be the justice of peace in some place (District
of Columbia) right before he leaves his office, but the incoming
administration (James Madison) doesn't follow through with Clinton's
appointment, and you don't get to be the justice of peace. So you sue
the incoming administration in the Supreme Court and try to have them
MAKE Bush's administration appoint you. But the Supreme Court tells
you that although you SHOULD be appointed to the position, they can
not make Bush's administration appoint you, because that would be
violating the limits the Constitution set out for the Supreme Court.
This decision is the "judicial review." The Supreme Court looks at the
law, which says that you should be appointed to that position Bill
Clinton appointed you, but also decides that the law is
unconstitutional, that is, the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to
force the Bush administration to appoint you.

That's pretty much the bones of it. As with any simplification, it
leaves out a lot of details, but the basics are there. I hope that
clears things up for you. If you need any more clarifications, please
let me know!

Best Regards,
blader-ga

very prompt and understanding when I needed revision. There was
alittle misinformation about the president, but going to the site
listed I was able to find correct information

What a great case.  Here's a link to the case text:

http://www.bowdoin.edu/~sbodurt2/court/cases/marbury.html

Chief Justice John Marshall is one of the great contributors to the
history of our Nation.  Here is some info on him:
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/pastjustices/marshall.html

Tom

It helps to get the basic facts of the case right.

First of all, James Madison was the incoming Secretary of State, not
president (that was Jefferson).

The Supreme court was asked to issue a writ of mandumus to force
Madison to certify Marbury as Judice of Peace. Remember, at this time
the supreme court was very weak. There were a number of people who
declined positions on the court because they didn't think it was
prestigious enough.

The source of this writ of mandumus was a law that congress had writen
that gave the supreme court the authority to force the executive to
fulfill its duty.

Marshall realized that issuing such a writ, even if it was the right
thing, would hurt the court's power because President Jefferson would
simply ignore it. On the other hand, it would also look weak if the
court didn't issue such a demand.

Marshall created an ingenius solution - by declaring Congress's law to
give extra power to the Judicial Branch of government was
unconstitutional. Thus, he was able to establish the ability of the
court to determine whether or not a law was constitutional, increasing
the court's power. He was able to get away with this because the issue
was not a serious one to most people in regard to whether or not that
specific law was ok.

I studyed constitutional law as a member of my high school's
constitution team that finished second in our state, so I know this
topic very well.

Also, oyez.com is an excelent resource for supreme court cases like this one.