Marbury v. Madison is the most famous case in American legal history. We all know that it is the case where Chief Justice Marshall introduced and adopted the concept of judicial review. The idea that the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the constitution and strike down laws that are not constitutional. Whether this concept is right or wrong there are a few other principles set forth in that opinion that have been completely ignored that are due equal reverence with judicial review.
1. The constitution must be strictly construed.
Marbury was appointed to a federal judgeship in the closing hours of the Adams' administration. His appointment was signed by the president and sealed by the secretary of state. However, the appointment was never delivered. The new administration (President Thomas Jefferson and secretary of state James Madison) refused to deliver the appointment. Marbury then filed suit in the form of a petition for writ of mandamus to the Supreme Court requesting an order directing that the appointment be delivered and Marbury be allowed to take his post. Marbury filed his petition pursuant to a legislative act that granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over cases such as his.
Chief Justice Marshall held that Marbury had a right to his appointment as a judge but that the Supreme Court had no authority to compel the delivery of his appointment. Marshall stated that the reason he and the Court could not force the appointment was that the act of congress that gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction was unconstitutional. He stated: "an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void." Because the Constitution lists the specific cases where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction the legislature does not have the authority to add to or change that list. Marshall interpreted the constitution in a very strict way. He interpreted the document as a closed document that limited the authority of the government. The list of cases that the Court had original jurisdiction over was limited and could not be added to without going through the amendment process.
The very case that many rely on for the proposition that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution demands that any interpretation of the Constitution be strictly construed. The Marbury case, in fact, stands for the principle that the Supreme Court cannot add to or change the constitution through "interpretation".
2. There is a remedy for every violation of rights.
If you can establish that you have a right, and that your right has been violated, then you are entitled to a remedy. This is true even when the government or a government employee is the one who violated your right. Marshal wrote: "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." By the use of such direct and strong language Marshall made it clear that a refusal to allow remedies for injuries to rights is an affront to our entire system of government. No one is so special that they are above the law in this country. The law is supreme and the Constitution is supreme among our laws. However, the concept of absolute judicial immunity persists in this country placing judges above the law even when they violate rights with malice. It is impossible to maintain absolute judicial immunity and remain a nation of laws.
1. The constitution must be strictly construed.
Marbury was appointed to a federal judgeship in the closing hours of the Adams' administration. His appointment was signed by the president and sealed by the secretary of state. However, the appointment was never delivered. The new administration (President Thomas Jefferson and secretary of state James Madison) refused to deliver the appointment. Marbury then filed suit in the form of a petition for writ of mandamus to the Supreme Court requesting an order directing that the appointment be delivered and Marbury be allowed to take his post. Marbury filed his petition pursuant to a legislative act that granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over cases such as his.
Chief Justice Marshall held that Marbury had a right to his appointment as a judge but that the Supreme Court had no authority to compel the delivery of his appointment. Marshall stated that the reason he and the Court could not force the appointment was that the act of congress that gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction was unconstitutional. He stated: "an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void." Because the Constitution lists the specific cases where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction the legislature does not have the authority to add to or change that list. Marshall interpreted the constitution in a very strict way. He interpreted the document as a closed document that limited the authority of the government. The list of cases that the Court had original jurisdiction over was limited and could not be added to without going through the amendment process.
The very case that many rely on for the proposition that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution demands that any interpretation of the Constitution be strictly construed. The Marbury case, in fact, stands for the principle that the Supreme Court cannot add to or change the constitution through "interpretation".
2. There is a remedy for every violation of rights.
If you can establish that you have a right, and that your right has been violated, then you are entitled to a remedy. This is true even when the government or a government employee is the one who violated your right. Marshal wrote: "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." By the use of such direct and strong language Marshall made it clear that a refusal to allow remedies for injuries to rights is an affront to our entire system of government. No one is so special that they are above the law in this country. The law is supreme and the Constitution is supreme among our laws. However, the concept of absolute judicial immunity persists in this country placing judges above the law even when they violate rights with malice. It is impossible to maintain absolute judicial immunity and remain a nation of laws.
RSS Feed
