Judicial Review Was Established in What Supreme Court Case?

Judicial Review

The Issue:  Does the Constitution Give the Supreme Court the Power to Invalidate the
Actions of Other Branches of Government?

Introduction
In 1800 the Federalists and their candidate, President John Adams, lost the ballot to Thomas Jefferson.  Early on in 1801 the lame-duck Federalist Congress enacted a controversial Judiciary Human action that created 58 new judgeships, including 42 justiceships of the peace, for Adams to appoint.  Jefferson complained that the Federalists "have retired into the judiciary equally a stronghold."  On the dark March iii, 1801, John Marshall, acting as secretary of state, affixed the official seal to the commissions for the justices of the peace.  He did non, however, deliver the commissions.  The adjacent solar day, subsequently Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated, he directed the new secretarial assistant of state, James Madison, to withhold delivery of 17 of the 42 commissions, including that of William Marbury.  William Marbury sued for a writ of mandamus to require Madison to manus over his commission.
William Marbury The determination in Marbury's example, written by Main Justice John Marshall (the very same John Marshall who affixed the seal to Marbury's committee--talk near a disharmonize of interest!) established and justified the power of judicial review.  It is the outset case read past virtually every kickoff-year police pupil and is generally considered the greatest of all landmark cases.  Marshall strained to reach his event.  The plain words of Section 13 of the Judiciary Act indicate that Marbury went to the wrong court or invoked the incorrect statute (or both), but Marshall proceeded as if the arrange were authorized by Section 13 and and then alleged the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that information technology purported to aggrandize the Court's original jurisdiction in violation of Commodity Three.  Marbury's suit was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  Marshall'due south conclusion--brilliant in its formulation--immune the Court to brand Jefferson a violator of civil rights without issuing an social club that the President could have ignored.

Case
Marbury vs. Madison (1803)

Fragment from John Marshall's Handwritten Decision

Questions

1. Is judicial review a skilful idea? Should nine unelected judges exist able to tell our elected representatives what they tin can and cannot do?
2. Are courts more than probable to block an aware consensus with their adherence to outdated principles or to protect the politically weak from oppressive majorities?
3.  Are judges, protected with lifetime tenure and drawn mostly from the educated grade, more probable to be reflective and above the passing enthusiasms that drive legislative action?
4.  Does Marbury mean that legislators or members of the executive branch take no responsibleness to judge the constitutionality of their own actions?
5.  Could we have a workable system of government without judicial review?

"The prime and most necessary function of the Court has been that of validation, non that of invalidation.  What a government of express powers needs, at the get-go and forever, is some ways of satisfying the people that it has taken all steps humanly possible to stay within its powers."

--Professor Charles L. Blackness

Links
Marbury 5. Madison Background & Players
(James Madison Univ.)

Judicial Review (Wikipedia) 1800-1809 American Events Timeline

John Marshall - Definer of a Nation

1803 Petition, Debate & Vote of Wm. Marbury & Others
(from Annals of Congress)

Pitching quoits

Q uoits, Anyone?: The Personality Differences of John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson "[John Marshall] was proud of his skills in pitching quoits--a game involving a kind of round horseshoe--and could exist observed at the Quoits Club in Richmond toward the end of his life downing Madeira and rum  dial, getting down on his easily and knees earnestly measuring the distance betwixt his quoit and those of his opponents, and and then shouting in unaffected happiness when he won.  It is hard to imagine the withdrawn and aristocratic Jefferson in a similar posture." --Jeffrey Rosen, The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America (2006).

Chief Justice John Marshall

The Judiciary Act  (Section 13):

     The act to establish the judicial courts of the Usa authorizes the supreme court "to consequence writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons belongings office, under the authorisation of the Us."

Article 3 of Constitution
Section. 2

     The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Constabulary and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the U.s. shall exist a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--betwixt Citizens of different States; --between Citizens of the same Land claiming Lands under Grants of dissimilar States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

      In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a Country shall exist Political party, the supreme Court shall accept original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall accept appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Constabulary and Fact, with such Exceptions, and nether such Regulations as the Congress shall brand.

Original Intent & Judicial Review

The Constitution does non expressly provide for judicial review.  What should be fabricated of this fact?  Does it suggest that the framers did not intend to give the courts such a ability?  Not necessarily, although that is i caption for its absenteeism.  It is likewise possible that the framers thought the power of judicial review was sufficiently clear from the construction of government that it demand not be expressly stated.  A third possibility is that the framers didn't remember that the issue would ever come up upwardly, considering Congress would never laissez passer legislation outside of its enumerated powers.

Only xi of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, according to Madison'southward notes, expressed an opinion on the desirability of judicial review.  Of those that did so, nine generally supported the thought and two opposed. Ane consul, James Wilson, argued that the courts should have the even broader power to strike down any unjust federal or state legislation.  It may too be worth noting that over one-half of the xiii original states gave their own judges some power of judicial review.

Footnote: The Flying Fish Example Two Views on Seizures John Adams T. Jefferson Vice President Thomas Jefferson opposed the 1799 order of President  Adams assuasive the seizing of ships.

Many people know the kickoff  Supreme Courtroom decision to declare an human activity of Congress unconstitutional (It's Marbury, of course), but few people could identify the Court's first decision declaring Executive Branch action to be unconstitutional. Little v Barreme (1804), called the Flight Fish example, involved an order by President John Adams, issued in 1799 during our brief war with France,  authorizing the Navy to seize ships spring for French ports.  The president'southward club was inconsistent with an deed of Congress declaring the government to have no such authorization.  After a Navy Captain in December 1799 seized the Danish vessel, the Flying Fish, pursuant to Adams's order , the owners of the ship sued the captain for trespass in U. Southward. maritime court.  On entreatment, C. J. Marshall rejected the helm's argument that he could not be sued because he was only following presidential orders.  The Courtroom noted that commanders "act at their ain peril" when they obey invalid orders--and the president'south guild was outside of his powers, given the congressional action.

washingtoncalwascame87.blogspot.com

Source: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/judicialrev.htm