04.06.2014 Views

Volu m e I - Purdue University Calumet

Volu m e I - Purdue University Calumet

Volu m e I - Purdue University Calumet

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Marshall handed down his opinion in Marbury v Madison. Marshall understood the criticality of this case to<br />

the judicial branch. It would be this decision that would either establish the Court’s independence and<br />

legitimacy or expose it’s weakness as an inferior branch.<br />

Marbury v Madison came about, because just before President Adams left office he nominated<br />

William Marbury to be justice of the peace for the District of Columbia. Marbury’s nomination was<br />

confirmed by the Senate and his commission was signed and sealed. However when Jefferson took office he<br />

ordered his Secretary of State James Madison not to deliver any commissions thus not giving Marbury his<br />

judgeship (Kommers, Finn and Jacobson 80).<br />

Marshall was faced with two choices; both of which seemed as though they would have the<br />

detrimental effects. Marshall could have chosen to rule in favor of Marbury ordering Madison to deliver the<br />

commission, which would have resulted in Jefferson ignoring the Court’s decision demonstrating the<br />

Court’s inability to execute its own rulings. He could have also chosen to deny Marbury his commission,<br />

which would have resulted in the public viewing the Court as a political agent. Instead he “emphasized that<br />

this case did not fall within the narrow categories of the Court’s original jurisdiction set out in the<br />

Constitution. Therefore, he concluded, Section 13 of the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional” (Rosen 23).<br />

This ruling maintained the Court’s independence in acting in correspondence to the Constitution as well as<br />

showing its strength as a viable governmental branch.<br />

As result to this ruling it became the duty of the Court to act as a “balancer” of powers, Marshall<br />

explains this by saying that “there needs to be effectual limitation of the legislature and those limitations are<br />

essentially attached to the written Constitution” (Faulkner 206). He also found that this function as the<br />

balancer was necessary for preserving the republican principles the Constitution outlines (Faulkner<br />

200/207).<br />

334

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!