Judicial ReEngineering

The constitutional issue involved the question of whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to
hear the case. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in cases
involving writs of mandamus. So, under the Judiciary Act, the Supreme Court would have had
jurisdiction to hear Marbury's case. However, the Constitution describes the cases in which the
Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, and does not include mandamus cases. The Judiciary
Act therefore attempted to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction that was not "warranted by the
Constitution."
Marshall's opinion stated that in the Constitution, the people established a government of limited
powers: "The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be
mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written." The limits established in the Constitution
would be meaningless "if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be
restrained." Marshall observed that the Constitution is "the fundamental and paramount law of
the nation", and that it cannot be altered by an ordinary act of the legislature. Therefore, "an act
of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void."
Marshall then discussed the role of the courts, which is at the heart of the doctrine of judicial
review. It would be an "absurdity", said Marshall, to require the courts to apply a law that is
void. Rather, it is the inherent duty of the courts to interpret and apply the Constitution, and to
determine whether there is a conflict between a statute and the Constitution:
“
It
is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to
say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases
must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws
conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of
each.
So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and
the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must
either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the
Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the
law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules
governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the
Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the
Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to
which they both apply....
”
Marshall stated that the courts are authorized by the provisions of the Constitution itself to "look
into" the Constitution, that is, to interpret and apply it, and that they have the duty to refuse to
enforce any laws that are contrary to the Constitution. Specifically, Article III provides that the
federal judicial power "is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution." Article VI
requires judges to take an oath "to support this Constitution." Article VI also states that only laws
Page 51 of 115