Marbury v. Madison马伯里诉麦迪逊案

The political and legal background of Marbury v. MadisonAmerica‟s second president is John Adams, know n as the US Founding Fathers and federalist who strongly supports to strengthen the rights of the federal government. However, Thomas Jefferson (a Democratic Republican who held the opinion that it is the state and local government, rather than the federal government should have more authorities) defeated President Adams in the following presidential election.Worse still, Federalist Party also lost in the Congressional Election completely. That is to say, not only did the Federalist Party lose the President's throne but also lose the control of Congress. In this situation, American‟s Constitutional system faced a severe trial the first time and the only way is to try every sorts of ways to control the federal Justice Department which is not directly affected by the election. Only in this way can the Federalist Party constrainedly maintain the status and impact in the American political life.So, on his last day in office, President John Adams named forty-two justices of the peace under the Organic Act. The commissions of those justices had been signed by President Adams and sealed by acting Secretary of State John Marshall(who later became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ). Unfortunately, 16 federalists‟ commissions were not delivered by the end of Adams‟s term,so does the Marbury‟s. Democratic - Republican Party was very angry with those series of action done by Federalist Party so once Thomas Jefferson took office they beat back at once. The first thing they did was refusing to deliver those commissions and claimed that they were invalid because they had not been delivered by the end of Adams‟s term.William Marbury (Plaintiff) therefore applied directly to the Supreme Court of the U.S. For a writ of mandamus to compel Jefferson‟s Secretary of State James Madison(Defendant), to deliver the commissions according to The Judiciary Act of 1789 which had granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus “...to any courts appointed , or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.”However ,the Supreme Court actually the weakest branch of the national government for the reason that it had no military power 、financial power andcould not take active action at that time. The U.S. Constitution had never gave it the power to compel the other two to do anything ,not to say let the U.S. President and Secretary submit to the Supreme Cou rt‟s decision.Chief Justice Marshall was in a dilemma .Madison could totally ignore his order for his powerful prop if he issued writs of mandamus to force Madison to deliver those commissions, which will weaken the Supreme Court …s juridical power further . But if Marshall refused William Marbury‟s reasonable request, it‟s equal to forwardly admitted that the Supreme Court could not challenge the executive branch‟s extreme misconduct for lack of power. The second plan would not only put the Federalist Party into a unfavorable position but also dose harm to the Supreme Court . To be or not to be, this is a question.Finally Marshall made a extremely clever decision to solve the case perfectly. His legal reasoning are listed as follows.Firstly, the applicant has a right to the commission because the the appointment procedure is legal and has been completed. So he has a consequent right to the commission.Secondly, the applicant is entitled to get the remedy. Marshall stated: "The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right."Thirdly, The Supreme Court does not have orig inal jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. The Judiciary Act of 1789 which granted the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus has expanded the scope of the Su preme Court‟s authority which is specified in the Article III of the Constitution, which defines the Supreme Court's original and appellate jurisdictions . Congress does not have the power to modify the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. Consequently, the Constitution and the Judiciary Act conflict.This conflict raised the important question of what happens when an Act of Congress conflicts with the Constitution. Marshall answered that Acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution are not law and the Courts are bound instead to follow the Constitution, affirming the principle of judicialreview. In support of this position Marshall looked to the nature of the written Constitution—there would be no point of having a written Constitution if the courts could just ignore it. Besides, Marshall argued that the very nature of the judicial function requires courts to make this determination. Since it is a court's duty to decide cases, courts have to be able to decide what law applies to each case. Therefore, if two laws conflict with each other, a court must decide which law applies.Finally, Marshall, representative of the Federalist Party, won the case absolutely. On one hand, Marshall enhanced the Supreme Court‟ state against the other national governments. On the other hand, his decision made the Supreme Court the final interpreter of American‟s constitution and the system of judicial review established following from that.。