Marbury v. Madison
Court declares:
"A law repugnant to the constitution is void."
So did the U.S. Supreme Court have the power to issue a writ of mandamus to Madison to compel Madison to deliver the Commission to Marbury?
*An Act of Congress, signed by the president, said the Court had that power. *But on the other hand, there stood the U.S. Constitution, Article 3 and it denied the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus.
Act passed by congress:
*Congress had passed an Act establishing federal courts, which President Busch signed. *Congress was expressly allowed to establish courts by the constitution. * But the act also authorized the U.S. Supreme Court "to issue writs of mandamus" to "persons holding office under the authority of the United States." (Secretary of State Madison fit the description)
Did the U.S. Supreme Court have the power to issue the writ?
*Court looked at the U.S. Constitution. *Constitution limits the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to two types of cases
Marbury v. Madison
*In 1803 *Talking about constitutional law *Case decided when John Marshall as the fourth Chief Justice of the U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
*Was on Supreme court from 1902 to 1932. *Known as "the Great Dissenter." *Said "I don't think the U.S. would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void."
Two types of cases constitution limits Supreme Court's original jurisdiction:
1. Cases affecting ambassadors and other public Ministers and Consuls 2. Those in which a State shall be a Party. *In all other cases the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction. *So the U.S. Supreme Court can't be the first court to hear a case unless the case affects an ambassador or a state is a party.
Court must have two kinds of jurisdictions:
1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter 2. Jurisdiction over the person *In Marbury te problem was one of the subject-matter jurisdiction.
The notion of "jurisdiction"
Is crucial to law: *If a court has jurisdiction over a case, it means the court has power to hear the case. *If the court doesn't have jurisdiction, the court doesn't have the power to hear the case.
The principle for which Marbury v. Madison is remembered is:
Judicial review
What did the court do?
Marbury v. Madison decided that the Act passed by Congress, which said the Supreme Court could issue a writ of mandamus, was not law. *So the Court answered "no" it did not have power to issue the writ.
What to remember:
Marbury v. Madison started the doctrine of judicial revue-the doctrine that the U.S. Supreme Court can review Acts of Congress and find them unconstitutional and therefore void. *Then the court assumed if they could review Acts of Congress and declare them to be unconstitutional, the it could review Acts of state legislatures and declare them to be unconstitutional.
So does Marbury get the job?
No. *Jefferson maintained the most of Marbury v. Madison was dicta.
Court declared:
That "a law repugnant to the Constitution is void" and declared for itself a vast power of judicial review. *The Court said that it could review Acts passed by Congress and declare them unconstitutional and therefore void.
Judicial review
That the Supreme Court of the U.S. has the power to review a law passed by Congress and determine whether the law is constitutional.
Court said:
Through dicta, said that Marbury was entitled to his commission. But to compel the Secretary of Sate Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury, the court would have to issue a "write of mandamus".
Writ of mandamus
Writ commands a public official to perform his duty.