Marbury And Questions Of Judicial Power And Interpretive Authority Outline

Marbury and Questions of Judicial Power and Interpretive Authority

1. Election of 1800

   1. [SEE pp. 99-103]

2. Stuart v. Laird (pg. 104)

   1. Stuart v. Laird involved a challenge to the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801, of which (1) abolished federal circuit judgeships thus requiring the Supreme Court Justices to return to riding circuit, and (2) caused the Circuit Judges to lose their commissions after receiving them.

      1. The petitioner challenged the Repeal Act on the grounds that (1) the repeal of the circuit judgeships was unconstitutional because according to Article III, once they had received their commissions, they were entitled to life tenure; and (2) the Justices of the Supreme Court held commissions to be Supreme Court Justices, but not circuit judges; therefore, they could not return to sit as circuit judges.

      2. The Court did not address whether there was a violation of Article III with respect to the abolition of the circuit judgeships; instead the court merely held that requiring the Supreme Court Justices to return to riding circuit was not unconstitutional:

         • "Congress have constitutional authority to establish from time to time such inferior tribunals as they may think proper; and to transfer a cause from one such tribunal to another. In this last particular, there are no words in the constitution to prohibit or restrain the exercise of legislative power." (pg. 105)

      3. In effect, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the repeal of the Judiciary Act.

3. Marbury v. Madison (pg. 108)

   1. Issue 1: Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands?

      1. Yes.

         • "[W]hen a commission has been signed by the President, the appointment is made; and that the commission is complete, when the seal of the United States has been affixed to it by the secretary of state." Marbury v. Madison (pg. 110)

           • "Where an officer is removable at the will of the executive, the circumstance which completes his appointment is of no concern; because the act is at any time revocable; and the commission may be arrested, if still in the office."

           • "But when the officer is not removable at the will of the executive, the appointment is not revocable, and cannot be annulled. It has conferred legal rights which cannot be resumed." Marbury v. Madison (pg. 110)

         • "The discretion of the executive is to be exercised until the appointment has been made. But having once made the appointment, his power over the office is terminated in all cases, where, by law, the officer is not removable by him. The right to the office is then in the person appointed, and he has the absolute, unconditional, power of accepting or rejecting it." Marbury v. Madison (pg. 110)

   1. Issue 2: If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of the country afford him a remedy?

      1. Yes.

         • The Court suggest that for every right there is a remedy. See Mabury.

           • "[W]here a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured, has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy." Marbury v. Madison (pg. 112)

         • The Court held:

           • "1st. That by signing the commission of Mr. Marbury, the president of the United States appointed him a justice of peace, for the county of Washington in the district of Columbia; and that the seal of the United States, affixed thereto by the secretary of state, is conclusive testimony of the verity of the signature, and of the completion of the appointment; and that the appointment conferred on him a legal right to the office for the space of five years." Marbury v. Madison (pg. 112)

           • "2dly. That, having this legal title to the office, he has a consequent right to the commission; a refusal to deliver which, is a plain violation of that right, for which the laws of his country afford him a remedy." Marbury v. Madison (pg. 112)

   2. Issue 3: If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court?

      1. "The act to establish the judicial courts of the United States authorizes the supreme court 'to issue writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.'" Marbury v. Madison (pg. 113)

         • "[I]f this court is not authorized to issue a writ of mandamus to such an officer, it must be because the law is unconstitutional, and therefore absolutely incapable of conferring the authority, and assigning the duties which its words purport to confer and assign." Marbury v. Madison (pg. 113)

      1. The Court concludes that the Judiciary Act conferring jurisdiction for the Court to issue a mandamus in the instant case was inconsistent with the Constitution; therefore, the Court ultimately concludes that the act is unconstitutional.

         • NOTE: The Court here resolved the ambiguity such that there would be a clash between the statute and the Constitution.

           • TODAY, the Court would employ the Canon of Avoidance, that is, where there are two fair readings of a statute, and one would cause a constitutional issue and the other would not, the Court will construe the statute such that there is no constitutional issue.

             • There is a presumption that Congress does not intend to pass unconstitutional laws.

         • "The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States . . . ." Marbury v. Madison (pg. 115)

         • "It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act." Marbury v. Madison (pg. 115)

         • "Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as 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." Marbury...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Constitutional Law I Outlines.