0
Could Congress give the US Supreme Court the power to issue an order granting Marbury his commission?
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)
No. Congress is not authorized to change the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction without formally amending the Constitution, which requires a two-thirds affirmative vote from both the Senate and House of Representatives, followed by ratification by three-quarters of the states.
However . . .
The portion of Article III Marshall used in support of his decision, "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction," was vague enough to invite the opposite interpretation, if Marshall had considered it in the Court's best interest.
Marshall could have decided US government officials fell within the Court's jurisdiction under "other public ministers and consuls," but chose to read the clause in the most literal sense possible. By declaring Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, asserting the right of judicial review, Marshall strengthened the position of the Judicial Branch without inviting opposition from Jefferson.
The Court's decision was most likely a brilliant political strategy disguised as a true constitutional interpretation.
Marshall already suspected Secretary of States James Madison would ignore a court order forcing delivery of Marbury, et al.'s commissions. If the order was refused, the Judicial Branch would be weakened and become subordinate to the other two branches of government. Marshall probably knew Jefferson wouldn't fight the Court's decision to declare part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional (although Jefferson openly opposed judicial review) if doing so would force him to contradict Marshall's clear reasoning, or capitulate to the Federalist party.
The opinion in Marbury v. Madison delivered a clear victory for the Supreme Court, and a partial victory for both Jefferson and Marbury, thus ensuring the decision would be accepted, if begrudgingly.
For more information, see Related Questions, below.
What else can I help you with?
Did William Marbury ever get the commission that Marbury v Madison said he had a right to?
No. In the opinion of the Court, Marshall declared Marbury was entitled to his commission, but that the Supreme Court didn't have original jurisdiction to issue the writ of mandamus Marbury requested. Marshall explicitly stated Marbury would have to refile his case in a lower court first, then appeal to the Supreme Court if he failed to get relief at that level. Marbury never refiled his case.Case Citation:Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)For more information, see Related Questions, below.
How did Congress retaliate to the Supreme Court's reprimand in Marbury v Madison that it had passed legislation that exceeded its constitutional authority?
Congress had no way to retaliate.
Which Supreme Court ruling laid the foundation for judicial review of laws passed by congress?
Marbury vs Madison
Why was the case of marbury v Madison significant?
It was the first time that the Supreme Court was able to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional.
In the US Supreme Court's opinion was Marbury entitled to his appointment?
Yes. In the opinion of the Court, Marshall declared Marbury was entitled to his commission, but that the Supreme Court didn't have original jurisdiction to issue the writ of mandamus Marbury requested. Marshall explicitly stated Marbury would have to refile his case in a lower court first, then appeal to the Supreme Court if he failed to get relief at that level. Marbury never refiled his case.Case Citation:Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Did William Marbury ever get the commission that Marbury v Madison said he had a right to?
No. In the opinion of the Court, Marshall declared Marbury was entitled to his commission, but that the Supreme Court didn't have original jurisdiction to issue the writ of mandamus Marbury requested. Marshall explicitly stated Marbury would have to refile his case in a lower court first, then appeal to the Supreme Court if he failed to get relief at that level. Marbury never refiled his case.Case Citation:Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)For more information, see Related Questions, below.
How did Congress retaliate to the Supreme Court's reprimand in Marbury v Madison that it had passed legislation that exceeded its constitutional authority?
Congress had no way to retaliate.
What was the reasoning behind the Supreme Court's decision in Marbury v Madison?
Does the supreme court have the power to invalidate an act of congress because it violates the constitution.
Which Supreme Court ruling laid the foundation for judicial review of laws passed by congress?
Marbury vs Madison
What was the decision of the Supreme Court in Marbury vs. Madison?
Marbury vs Madison established the principle of "judicial review."Judicial review says the Supreme Court can decide on whether laws passed by Congress and signed by the President are constitutional.
What was the significiane of the marbury vs Madison case that was argued before the supreme court in 1803?
This was the first time that the Supreme Court had declared an act of Congress unconstitutional.
How does the Supreme Court limit the of congress?
The Supreme Court holds the power of judicial review, meaning it can declare a law unconstitutional. The law would then be repealed, checking the power of congress. (see Marbury V. Madison)
Why was the case of marbury v Madison significant?
It was the first time that the Supreme Court was able to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional.
What was Marbury vs Madison?
It is the Supreme Court case that established the precedence of Judicial Review to declare an Act of Congress to be Unconstitutional.
What principle was affirmed in the Supreme Court case of marbury v. Madison?
The most important result of Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803), is that it affirmed the Supreme Court's right of judicial review and set a precedent for future cases. Judicial review is the power of the Court to evaluate Acts of Congress (laws) and the President (Executive Orders) relevant to cases before the Court to determine their constitutionality, and to nullify any they find unconstitutional.In Marbury, the Supreme Court determined Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because Congress had overreached their authority by granting the Court the right to issue all writs of mandamus, which contradicted the language of Article III of the Constitution.
In the US Supreme Court's opinion was Marbury entitled to his appointment?
Yes. In the opinion of the Court, Marshall declared Marbury was entitled to his commission, but that the Supreme Court didn't have original jurisdiction to issue the writ of mandamus Marbury requested. Marshall explicitly stated Marbury would have to refile his case in a lower court first, then appeal to the Supreme Court if he failed to get relief at that level. Marbury never refiled his case.Case Citation:Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)For more information, see Related Questions, below.
How did marbury v. Madison affect the constitution system of the checks and balances?
It confirmed the supreme court's to declare acts of congress unconstitutionally.
