Marbury v. Madison

you the foundation on which rests the government of the United States is the Constitution like most important political documents the Constitution is subject to interpretation that is one of its great strengths the Constitution is not a legal straightjacket it is firm and yet flexible enough to meet the needs of an ever-growing ever-changing nation naturally the question arises who is to say what the Constitution means who is to say for example whether a law enacted by Congress is constitutional or whether it is not Congress the president the judiciary the question arose during the very infancy of the Republic it brought face to face to eminent statesmen who have profoundly affected America as we know today President Thomas Jefferson and Chief Justice John Marshall what Jefferson said was this the voice of the people is supreme let the people decide through their elected representatives what the Constitution means and what it means not what John Marshall said on the other hand was this the Constitution itself intends for the federal judiciary to make that decision men who are appointed to the bench for life and would therefore stand above party strife and political turmoil the difference of opinion of the two men on this crucial issue was resolved within the framework of a case known as Marbury vs. Madison a case which was heard before the Supreme Court in 1803 and which led to one of the most important decisions ever made by that court some time during the fall of 1801 four men decided to pay a visit to the United States Department of State the four men's names were Marbury Ramsay Harper and whole president Adams during the very last days administration had nominated them as justices of the peace for the District of Columbia the Senate had confirmed them President Adams had signed their commissions and the then Secretary of State John Marshall had affixed to the Commission's the seal of the United States however in the great flurry of activities during John Adams exit from the political stage these Commission's had disappeared Jefferson's Republicans were in power now Thomas Jefferson was president and James Madison Secretary of State and the Commission's of Marbury Ramsay Harper and hole had still not turned up gentlemen I'm mr. Marbury William Marbury this mr. Ramsay mr. Harper mr. Howe we're here to see the Secretary of State out of what business we'd prefer to put that directly to mr. Madison mr. Madison has given instructions very strict instructions sir that he be informed of his visitors business before they are admitted very well then we're here to inquire into the whereabouts of four Commission's the Commission for these gentlemen and myself as justices of the peace of the District of Columbia so we're about that's right the whereabouts we know that they were signed by the president and sealed they were never delivered to us if you'll wait a moment gentlemen you'll see us Walt if he doesn't I'll make him jump you mark my words make him jump there's little chance of that you keep forgetting Marbury we lost the election mr. Jefferson is in charge now and he'll play the tomb and we Federalists will do the jumpin we lost those Commission's when we lost the election and that is that well I don't think that is that we have a legal right to those commissions doesn't matter which party owns that desk Marbury let's go home not until he see them gentlemen I'm mr. Wagner the chief clerk the secretary has urgent business and cannot see you he has directed me to talk to you I'm at your service gentlemen mr. Wagner this matter concerns the secretary himself he cannot be disturbed I'm sorry if you will be so kind as to state your business mr. Wagner the four of us were nominated by President Adams as justices of the peace for the District of Columbia former President Adams the nominations were confirmed by the Senate they were signed by the president but they would never deliver to him I know nothing about that nor I'm sure does anyone else here least of all mr. Madison you're aware of course that he didn't take office until May I know that however mr. Wagner the Commission's were last seen on a table in the State Department now mr. Madison is in charge of that department and we intend to hold him responsible I doubt that he'll accept that responsibility just so we don't misunderstand each other mr. Wagner the withholding of an official document of the United States a commission of office is a crime for which a man is punishable under the law even if that man is the Secretary of State you're not considering are you taking the Secretary of State to court yes we are mr. Witt as a matter of fact we will take him to court if that's what it takes to force this department to produce our Commission you don't think any man is above the law do you the Secretary of State the President himself now mr. Wagner are you going to tell us about our commissions or not I know nothing about them sir nothing at all Marbury and his companions would file a petition in the Supreme Court what they demanded specifically was that the Secretary of State James Madison be forced by an order from that court to hand over to them the commissions to which they felt themselves entitled the power to issue such an order they knew had been given to the Supreme Court by the Judiciary Act of 1789 the court then consisted of six men Chief Justice John Marshall justice Alfred Moore just as William Paterson Justice William Cushing Justice Bushrod Washington and Justice Samuel chase all appointed by either George Washington or John Adams let us assume the men have a case question is there a statute which would empower this court to hear it there is section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 the language mr. person section 13 mr. chief justice authorized us to issue court orders in cases warranted by the principles and usages of the law to any persons holding office under the authority of the United States then we can issue an order to the Secretary of State directing him to produce these commissions if the case warrants it I feel constrained to point out that this case should we decide to hear it and should we have reason to find from Marbury that this case will set us on a collision course with president Jefferson now that he and his Republicans are in power good good it's only a matter of time until they lay an axe to this Court the last remnant of their federalist opposition now we have a chance to head them off only to be accused of acting from political motives now mr. chase we would be finishing mr. Jefferson with ammunition irrelevant whether we furnish him or not he carries enough political can't in his head with which to load his cannon until the day of doom we can't furnish him with ammunition mr. Marshall yes well surely this Court has no business meddling with the executive or with his cabinet members on the other hand if mr. Marber is entitled to his commission and if it's being wrongfully withheld from him it appears this Court has certain responsibilities responsibilities which I for one than willing to live up to thank heavens mr. Giles there are some matters that Brooke no opinion there's only one way to bake a tart or for Maj this is it I thank God mr. president hmm no need to make light of it mr. congressman heaven this mr. Markuson mr. president what is that paper you have in your hand it's an order from the Supreme Court what order I've been asked to show cause why should not be directed by the supreme court to produce certain Commission's Commission's as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia the names of Marbury Harper Brant ignore it ignore the order nothing further nothing my friend the Chief Justice what could have been more plain in the world than that he was just waiting for this opportunity to strike at you yes mr. president to strike at the executive authority of this government it's plain as day that he intends to furnish the opposition an opportunity to abuse you to vilify you it's not enough to ignore him to do nothing you have been attacked mr. president strike back these commissions mr. president do you know anything about them I do yes I found them on the table of the State Department when I took office I forbad their delivery you hadn't arrived yet ah you find this irregular consider 42 commissions that man Adams crowded into the last hour of his administration forty-two and all of them picked from among my worst enemies and with the simple motive of preventing me from staffing my administration with my own people what else was I to do except for the life appointments which are irrevocable I've treated the miss analogy expedient but not altogether legal what else could I do for so many years is this republic been under Federalist rule so many years have we laboured to drive them from the government and now that we've done it we have routed them from the legislature routed them from the executive they hang on thanks to mr. Adams they hang on to the judiciary like pleased run old blanket and the worst of it is we must feed and care for them while they try to strike down safe in their own fortress to strike down ruin all the works of republicanism they must be move counter move mr. president repeal the circuit court act repeal the entire judicial system at one blow we shall terminate all present office holders create a new system entirely and cut back the power of the courts to its proper limits the people govern not the courts well that's madness mr. Giles the judiciary system is perfectly adequate it will suffice to replace its present occupants is it madness mr. president yes mr. Giles it is but my present frame of mind it's also very tempting idea not practicable but it is tempting Circuit Court Act yes I would see it repealed as to replacing the present occupants of the judiciary I think you're quite right mr. Madison yes let's keep our eyes open for any opportunities to impeach two or three of these gentlemen I think that might have quite a good impression that is not a mouth well I shall not try to destroy the federal judiciary mr. Giles although I wish to see its power curved the Constitution prescribes that the three branches of the government balance each other not as the dominate the other if we permit the Supreme Court to concern itself with the business of the legislature under the executive we shall have conceded to them the right to control this business and that is inconsistent with every idea of good government Thomas Jefferson viewed the Supreme Court's action in behalf of William Marbury as an attack upon the executive he retaliated first by means of the Congress under his direction Congress repealed an important piece of Federalist legislation the circuit court Act of 1801 Congress then suspended the June and August terms of the Supreme Court next came impeachment proceedings against a federal judge by the name of Pickering and finally there were rumors that Supreme Court Justice Samuel chase was marked for a similar fate the rights of the individuals are at stake yes of course but there's a great deal more to it the independence of this Court is at stake the independence of this court is provided by the Constitution it's no longer merely a legal question that concerns us here Congress has seen thoroughly to that and I presume under mr. Jefferson's prompting if we take it up now we do political battle however the prospect of that may strike anyone else I find it extremely distasteful I find it hopeless we are in midst of a battle yes a battle which we cannot win if we find for mr. Marbury and order mr. Madison to produce this accursed Commission what will happen nothing mr. Madison will simply ignore us as we have no way to enforce our decisions we shall have established ourselves as in a relevancy if on the other hand we find against mr. Marbury it will be said that we have vindicated the president because we fear his anger ridiculous quite so no we're damned either way I've always thought that the greatest scourge and angry heaven could inflict on a sinning and ungrateful people would be an ignorant corrupt or a dependent judiciary this court must give honourable proof of its independence order be said we don't deserve it we're not and never should be in the business of making political warfare peace doesn't come from the absence of conflict mr. Washington but from the ability to cope with it if a wrong has been committed and if the Constitution authorizes us to act on it there's any one claim that the secretary or even the president is above the law and if they have violated the law gentlemen consider where can a man turn for the protection of his rights but to our Courts of Justice arguments in Marbury vs. Madison were heard before the Supreme Court in February of 1803 Charles Lee represented Marbury and his companions the Secretary of State gentlemen is not above the law where he acts as an agent of the president under the direct orders of the president he may not be responsible to the course but he is also a public servant to the people of the United States as such he has duties which are assigned to him not by the president but by the law in the execution of these duties he is independent of all control except the control of the law the people can compel him to do these duties and if he refuses he must answer to the course now we do not wish to punish mr. Madison for his refusal to surrender to mr. Marbury the commission to which unquestionably he is entitled we wish to protect mr. Marbury and to see that he gets what is due him this objective can be achieved by means of a court order to mr. Madison demanding that he forthwith produced the Commission which will install mr. Marbury in the office for which he was nominated by President Adams and in which the Senate confirmed him if a court order of this nature can be issued at all by this court it can be issued to the Secretary of State the act of Congress gives this court the power to award it in cases warranted by the principles and usages of the law to any persons holding office under the authority of the United States gentlemen I think the case warrants it on its face the case had nothing to do with the question as to whose interpretation of the Constitution was the binding one yet Chief Justice Marshall made at the springboard for a crucially significant pronouncement on just that matter he did so by questioning the constitutionality of the very act of Congress which had empowered the court to hear the case in the first place section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 well can there be any doubt that Marbury is entitled to his commission surely we can agree on that are we maintaining that for such a document to take effect that it suffices for it to be signed by the president and to be sealed that the act of delivery is irrelevant the Commission is valid from the moment it is signed and sealed I think you remind me of a fellow I had in the witness box mr. chase great many years ago kept answering my questions with I think so I said to him don't think tell us what you know he replied well I'm not a lawyer I can't talk what I'm thinking no three questions need to be answered in this order number one as Marbury our right to the Commission which he's claiming number two if he has a right to said Commission and that right has been violated to the laws of the land offering protection number three if the laws of the land offering protection what can we do for now can we direct Madison to produce the Commission do him can we of course we can we heard this case precisely because section 13 of the Judiciary Act gave us the power to act if necessary in such manner all right question one I think we have an agreement here this Commission was signed it were sealed it is valid then we must have agreement on question two as well if the Commission is valid if Marbury has a legal right to the office of justice of the peace then refusal to deliver that Commission is a plain violation of that right for which the law of the land offers him protection agreed gentlemen now for the crucial question can the situation be remedied by an order from this court directing mr. Madison to surrender the Commission to mr. Marbury I thought that was agreed on from the beginning section 13 of the Judiciary Act empowers us to issue just such an order it'll be ignored yes but the law is clear is it really mr. Patterson is there any question of that might be of whether it is clear of whether it is clearly the law nothing clearer it was passed by Congress signed by the president who long studied this section thirteen closely I've also refreshed my memory incidentally my respect for that very excellent instrument our Constitution and the Constitution says that we have jurisdiction in cases such as this article 3 section 2 but the case must come to us on appeal from a lower court gentlemen yeah look it up for yourself mr. Washington yes of course Marbury vs. Madison did not come to us on appeal gentle it originated in this Court perfect we have no jurisdiction the case is closed not quite Oh section 13 of the Judiciary Act is in conflict with the Constitution I propose we make the point how so by declaring it unconstitutional section 13 presumes to give us jurisdiction where the Constitution plainly says we don't have it I disagree mr. Chief Justice I disagree section 13 merely says that we can issue a court order quote in cases warranted by the principles and usages of the law it does not specify the nature of the case it does not say in cases which originate in this Court nor does it say in cases which come to this Court on appeal section 13 merely says in cases warranted by the principles and usages of the law so section 13 need not be construed as conflicting with the Constitution all depends on how we interpret it its Patterson can section 13 be interpreted as giving us jurisdiction in a case like this that originates in this Court yes of course then it is in conflict with the Constitution but we don't have to interpret it that way but we can and I urge that we do so that we find section 13 unconstitutional and that we so declared discipline I ask for your consent why is it not enough to say that we have no jurisdiction why go further why plain as day mr. Patterson it's perfectly extraordinary a declaration of independence mr. Patterson by declaring section 13 unconstitutional an Act passed by Congress and signed into law by the president this Court will a staked its claim to the right to say to the legislative and to the executive what the Constitution means and what it means not mr. Patterson we shall have stated emphatically that it is the province of the judiciary department to say what the law is what puzzles me mr. Marshall is when we decided to hear this case on the basis of this section 13 and when you first laid eyes on it did you decide then that it was unconstitutional it had occurred to you then that we might use this case sometimes our best opportunities come wrapped in our worst problems mr. Washington it's always been my belief that the only way to safeguard the Constitution was to put it in the hands of the judiciary not in the hands of the legislative not of the executive after all the Constitution is either superior to the law unchangeable by ordinary means or it's on the level of ordinary legislative acts three change whenever the legislature or the executive is pleased to change this be the case if say the legislature were in a position to change the Constitution whenever it pleased but then a written constitution would be merely an absurd attempt to limit the power which well which by its very nature is illimitable certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them is forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void John Marshall's decision in MA robbery versus Madison was as follows he said the Constitution does not empower the Supreme Court to issue a direct order to mr. Madison to produce the commission to which mr. Marbury is legally entitled in other words he said we have no jurisdiction in this case but then he went a step further he said section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 purports to give the court a power which the Constitution in fact does not get it section 13 therefore is unconstitutional what on the surface looked like inter-party wrangling was used by marshal to resolve a great political issue the question who is to say what the Constitution means was answered the Supreme Court said John Marshall president Jefferson disagreed I disagree yes of course I disagree why should the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court only have the right to tell us what the Constitution means the Constitution which mr. Marshall so cherishes wills that the three branches of the government are equal equal mr. Madison it is the judiciary branches province to tell us what the law is claims mr. Marshall on what grounds I ask you on what ground isn't that much in our Constitution to just find mr. Marshalls claim let each branch of the government decide within the framework of the duties assigned it by the Constitution for itself and for itself only what the Constitution means and what it means not now that is proper that is in conformance with the principle of equality of the three branches and if there had to be if there had to be one branch to interpret the Constitution for the others I say let it be Congress President Jefferson won his battle against Marbury and his companions they never received their commissions Chief Justice John Marshall however won the war to establish the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution he declared for the first time an act of Congress signed into law by the President as unconstitutional the right of the courts to pass on the constitutionality of laws the principle of judicial review was not new it had been exercised before at the state level in Marbury vs. Madison John Marshall extended it to encompass federal law in so doing he established the right of the Supreme Court of the United States to say what the Constitution means and what it means not to the government of the states and to the federal government as well Marbury vs. Madison taught America that the Constitution cannot be ignored in settling great political issues it stressed the limitations on governmental power provided by the instrument and it affirmed the constitutional duty of the Supreme Court to decide if and when the political branches of government exceeded their constitutional bounds you

Channel: PublicResourceOrg

Views: 168,352

Rating: 4.7711949 out of 5

Keywords: uscourts.gov, public.resource.org, justice, court, equal justice

Id: uLRO5iCWpps

Length: 33min 32sec (2012 seconds)

Published: Mon Jan 21 2008