Controversy and the Significance of the Supreme Court
As the then President John Adams Secretary of State in 1801, Marshall had a duty of giving judicial commissions to appointees, which included Wiliam Marbury, who was at the center of a dispute. Marshall failed to deliver the commissions and later presided over the case as the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
The first controversy was whether Marbury had the Right to the Commission. Second, another salient point of contention involved whether the existing laws created a solution for denying the Right. The third controversy of the case involved whether the Court needed to issue a Writ of Mandamus requiring the Commission’s delivery.
The United States Supreme Court should hear the case because Marbury v. Madison was between two legal partners: the presidency and Congress. No other lower court could listen to the point, and only the Supreme Court could act as a system of checks and balances between the acts of the President and Congress (deButts, 2019). The Supreme Court is logically the final authority for interpreting and protecting the Constitution.
The first controversy was whether Marbury had the Right to the Commission. Marshall stated that Marbury had a right to the Commission after the President ascended to it, along with the sealing by the Secretary of State (deButts, 2019).
The Court might have apprehended that the Commission was not in charge until after the delivery of the Commission. Nevertheless, the jury indicated that the Commission went into effect immediately after the President signed the Commission.
The second issue involved whether the existing laws created a solution for denying the Right. The viewpoint discovered that the legal remedy was essential for lawful mistakes. The United States government is an “of laws and not of men” country; the courts need to remedy the abuse of legal rights. The Supreme Court decided that the Judiciary would enforce an Executive branch duty established by the Constitution or federal law.
The third controversy of the case involved whether the Court needed to issue a Writ of Mandamus requiring the Commission’s delivery. Marshall discovered a conflict between the Judiciary Act of 1789 enacted by Congress and the United States Constitution.
He found that Section 13 of the Act instructed initial actions in the Supreme Court for the Writ of Mandamus to officers in the US like the actors involved in this case (deButts, 2019). Marshall later ruled section 13 of the Judiciary Act to be illegitimate since it was in the shortest disapproval to article III of the Constitution.
Potential Rulings and Legal Basis for the Case
The case of Marbury v. Madison had three questions that required answers before making the final ruling and the legal basis behind each question and decision. As a newly appointed United States Supreme Court Justice, I would rule in favor of the plaintiff, the appointed justices of Peace for the District of Columbia, that he had a right to the injunction for which he petitioned.
Once the President ascends to a decision and is sealed by the Secretary of State, the commissions become constitutional to be put to action effectively. The plaintiff also had a right to file a case since the Constitution legalizes commissions after the President’s signature.
Similarly, I would also rule in favor of the plaintiff on the query of whether the existing Laws developed a solution for the deprivation of the Right to Commission. It is a constitutional right for a plaintiff to get a legal remedy for any legal wrong.
The United States government had violated the legal rights of the appointed justices for peace for the District of Columbia despite being one of the laws, a case that requires court remedy. Another legal basis for my ruling would be that the Judiciary has a mandate of enforcing any constitutionally or federal law establishment of the Executive branch duty.
The third potential ruling I could give as a Supreme Court Justice would be concerning a writ of Mandamus necessitating the delivery of the Commission. I would rule against the plaintiff’s request that the Law needs to grant a writ of Mandamus requiring the provision of the Commission based on a various legal basis.
First, section 13 of the Judiciary Act is unconstitutional since it is directly against Article III of the Constitution despite the section of the Act’s authorization of novel actions in the Supreme Court for the writ of Mandamus to officers of the United States. There is thus a contradiction between the Congress’s Judiciary Act of 1789 and the United States Constitution.
The Actual Ruling of the Case
The Court has no constitutional obligation to issue a writ of Mandamus requiring the delivery of the Commission Although section 13 of the Judiciary Act has the authority to for the original action in the Supreme Court for writs of Mandamus to officers in the US such as that involving the commissions of the justices of the peace, the section is unconstitutional due to its direct opposition to article III of the Constitution.
Congress can change the jurisdiction of the Court. However, it is unconstitutional for the changes to affect the original jurisdiction for the Writ of Mandamus, like Marbury v. Madison. The Law that contradicts in any way the Constitution is invalid since the Constitution is the supreme law.
The Law conflicts with the Constitution, and hence the Court can use its power to overturn or disdain such Law that is against the Constitution. The Constitution should remain the superior Law to any established law by anybody, such as Congress. As such, it is the obligation of the Judiciary with the Supreme Court’s leadership to follow the Constitution instead of illegal considerations of the Federal Law.
Effect of the Ruling on the Current Case
My ruling would not alter the current case that the Court had no legal mandate to issue a remedy on William Marbury, who took the case directly to the Supreme Court. Marbury was justified to take legal action in Court. However, the Judiciary Act that was the basis of the case and permitted the Supreme Court to listen to the original action for the Writ of Mandamus contradicted Article III of the Constitution.
Importance of Changes
The Supreme Court is an equal partner of the government besides the executive and the Congress as an arm responsible for protecting the Constitution. The changes in the ruling would be inappropriate since the Supreme Court is the highest and hence reliable system for imposing checks and balances of the constitutional implementation by Congress and the Presidency.
Marbury v. Madison remains a landmark and relevant ruling today because the ruling established the doctrine of judicial review. The iconic case led to the expansion of the Supreme Court’s power to overrule acts of Congress. Even though these powers are not explicitly enshrined in the constitution, they help in preserving the Constitution.
Reference
deButts, D. R. (2019). A game theoretic analysis of Marbury v Madison: The origins of judicial review. James Blair Historical Review, 9(2), 2. Web.