Judicial Review in United
States of America
(Marbury
Vs Madison)
Judicial Review: It is the
power of Judiciary to review the legality of a law passed by legislative and action
by executive/administration.
|
President of U.S |
Political Party |
Secretary of State |
|
John Adams (1797-1801) |
Federalist Party |
John Marshall |
|
Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) |
Democratic-Republican Party |
James Madison |
John Adams, just two days before the end of his term, appointed the
Federalist-supporters as circuit judges and justice of peace. The next day,
these appointments were approved by senate and signed by the President. John
Adams asked his secretary of State (also CJ of U.S) John Marshall to dispatch
these commissions of appointment. Before the inauguration of the next President
of U.S, Thomas Jefferson, some of the commissions were un-delivered. After
assuming office, Jefferson believed that un-delivered commissions were void and
instructed his secretary of state, James Madison, to withhold the remaining
commissions (including of William Marbury’s commission).
Marbury filed a case
against Madison in Supreme Court of U.S to issue a writ of mandamus to deliver
his commission. Chief Justice of U.S, John Marshal decided his opinion in
answers to three question;
1.
Does Marbury have right to this commission?
2.
If yes, then what is the legal remedy for his?
3.
If yes, does Supreme Court has jurisdiction to issue legal
remedy?
Answering to 1st question, Marshall
said that after the appointment orders were completed after the signatures of
President, and delivery was just a formality. Hence, Marbury has right to this
commission and withholding by Madison was illegal.
Answering to 2nd question,
he said, it is a rule of law that “where there is a legal right, there is a
legal remedy.” That’s why it is the right of Marbury that commission should be
delivered to him.
Answering to 3rd question,
Marshal said that Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus
for the delivery of commission according to the Section-2,
Article-III of U.S Constitution: “Supreme Court has jurisdiction in all cases where
ambassadors or public ministers are affected, and in all cases where state
shall be a party.”
Marbury maintained that Supreme Court
has power to issue a writ of mandamus according to Section-13, Judiciary Act of 1789: “Supreme Court shall
have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by
the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding
office, under the authority of the United States.”
Marshall said that Congress cannot
increase the jurisdiction of Supreme Court which is written in the constitution.
Therefore, Section-13 of Judiciary Act of 1789 violates the Article-III of the Constitution.
And, if any law/act or a part/portion of law/act is contradicted to
Constitution, it is the duty of judiciary department to strike down it. As a
result, Section-13 was removed from the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Analysis/Significance/Impacts:
·
Marbury
Vs Madison proved to be a landmark case, which gave judiciary a powerful
position like other pillars of state; executive and legislative.
·
Marshall
did his best to maintain the position of judiciary un-rival by maintaining a
middle position. He gave favor Marbury in first two opinions but, to the
government in 3rd opinion.
·
If
Court issue a writ of mandamus, it was obvious that Jefferson would refuse to
obey it.
·
Court
proved it to be a powerful state organ, by declaring illegal the act of
withholding commission.
·
Court
set an example that, judiciary is the only organ that has power to interpret
the Constitution and has power to declare a legislation constitutional or
un-constitutional.
It has been written on the wall of the SC of U.S; “IT IS EMPHATICALLY THE PROVINCE AND DUTY OF JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT TO SAY WHAT THE LAW IS.”