FACTS
“John Adams, the second President of the United States of
America, belonging to the Federalist Party, towards the end of his term as a
lame-duck president, signed orders appointing forty-two new Justices of the
Peace and sixteen new circuit court judges for the District of Columbia. These
appointees were Federalists, as opposed to the incoming Democratic-Republican
Party for the next term.”
“These appointments, thus, were a result of a power tussle
between the two parties, and such appointments would, in theory, ensure the
balance of power in the judiciary remained with the Federalists, even after
their party lost to the Democratic-Republicans.”
“The commissions were signed by President Adams; however,
they could not be delivered before the end of his term, thus spilling over to
the succeeding President’s term. President Jefferson, the new President,
instructed the Secretary of State, James Madison, to withhold delivery of the
commissions, stating that the same should have been done before the end of
President Adams’s term.”
“William Marbury was an intended recipient of the
commissions, but did not receive it for reasons state hereinabove.
Subsequently, Marbury applied to the Supreme Court of the United States (‘USSC’),
in its original jurisdiction, a writ of mandamus, under section 13 of the
Judiciary Act of 1789, directing the respondent, James Madison, to deliver his
commission.”
ISSUES
The following issues were framed by the USSC in deciding
this case:
a. Whether Marbury has a vested
legal right to the commission to be appointed as a Justice of the Peace.
b. If so, whether there exists a
legal remedy for the infringement of Marbury’s vested legal right.
c. Whether the issuance of the Writ
of Mandamus by the Supreme Court is a proper remedy.
d. Whether the courts can examine
enacted Statutes and the actions of the Executive for their legality and
constitutionality.
“In light of the
issues framed above, it must be kept in mind that by the time the USSC came to
hear the case, about half of Marbury’s term was already over, and President
Jefferson’s agenda of reducing the number of Justices of the Peace was reaching
fruition. Thus, the issue related to Marbury’s vested right was practically
only a moot point.[1] The real issue to be dealt with by the
Supreme Court, thus, was whether it can exercise the power of judicial review,
which would go on to shape US Constitutional Law for the years to come.”
RULES
Section 2 of Article II of the US Constitution[2]
states the President’s power to appoint public officers and provides as
follows:
“…he shall nominate, and by
and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other
public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other
Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise
provided for, and which shall be established by Law…”
Section 1 of Article III of the US Constitution[3]
provides for the establishment of the Judiciary:
“The judicial Power of the
United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior
Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
Section 2 of Article III of the US Constitution[4]
provides for the exercise of original jurisdiction by the Supreme Court:
“…In all Cases affecting
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State
shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction….
Section 13 of the Judiciary Act, 1789[5]
provided for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Supreme Court, the operative
part with respect to this judgment is as follows:
“…That the Supreme Court shall
have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a
state is a party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also
between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case
it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction…”
“…and shall have power to
issue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of
admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and 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.”
In light of the abovementioned provisions of law and the US
Constitution, the court proceeded with their judgment on the facts of the case.
ANALYSIS
Whether Marbury has a vested legal right to the
commission to be appointed as a Justice of the Peace.
Marshall, C.J., in his opinion analysed the provisions of
the Constitution that vest with the President the power to appoint and
commission public officers, including judges of the courts. These powers flow
largely from Article II of the US Constitution.
“Article II(2)
of the US Constitution provides that the President shall nominate and in
consultation with the Senate, appoint all public officers.[6]
Article II(3) further states the power of the president to commission such
appointments.[7]
Furthermore, the Records Act provides that the Secretary of State must make out
and record, and affix said seals to all civil commissions appointed by the President.”[8]
On analysing these rules, the court reached the conclusion
that the act of appointing and commissioning cannot be considered as one and
the same, especially in light of the distinct provisions. However, in the
present case, the appointment had already been made and the commission had
already been sealed for Marbury’s appointment as Justice of the Peace.
“The court,
taking the facts and circumstances into hand, stated that the executive can
exercise its authority only till the stage of “appointment”. Once the seal is affixed on the
commission, only the appointee can accept or reject the appointment.
Furthermore, since no law provided for Marbury’s appointment to be revoked, it
was clear that it created a vested right in favour of Marbury.”
Thus, in conclusion, the court held that withholding the
commission of Marbury as a Justice of the Peace would be violative of his
vested right.
Whether there exists a legal remedy for the
infringement of Marbury’s vested legal right.
In order to deal with this issue, the Supreme Court divided
the Acts of the officers of the Executive into 2 parts, the first being when
they act as agents of the Executive or President, in their own discretion.
These acts are not examinable by courts. However, when such officers carry out
those duties which are assigned by law, then they have a legal right to that
position, a corollary of which is the existence of legal remedies.
In the present case, since Marbury was appointed and
commissioned by the President to an irrevocable post, and the only act left was
the delivery of such commission, there existed a vested legal right, which
Marbury could assert as if it were derived from any other source.
In this regard, it was thus concluded that the existence of
a vested legal right automatically created an available legal remedy to assert
such vested right.
Whether the issuance of the Writ of Mandamus by the
Supreme Court is a proper remedy.
Remedy under Section 13 of the Judiciary Act, 1789.
“The Supreme
Court in analysing this issue, referred to the law regarding the Writ of
Mandamus, and stated the ratio in the case of The King v. Baker, et al.[9],
where it was held that the writ of mandamus is issued when no specific
remedy is available in law. It has already been concluded that Marbury is
entitled to a legal remedy, in the previous issue. However, there is no
specific remedy provided in law.”
“Further,
section 13 of the Judiciary Act, 1789 allows the court to issue writs in exercising
its original jurisdiction. Hence, to this extent, the plea for issuing a writ
of mandamus is valid. However, the court further went on to examine the
constitutional validity of this provision to reach a different conclusion
altogether. This is discussed in the subsequent issues.”
Constitutional Validity of the Remedy Provided under
Section 13 of the Judiciary Act, 1789.
“The US
Constitution vests judicial powers with the Supreme Court, as laid down under
Article III, which states that the USSC has original jurisdiction only over
those matters where Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those
in which a State are parties.[10]
The present suit brought by Marbury fails to meet any of these criteria.
Despite this, a remedy is provided for under section 13 of the Judiciary Act,
1789.”
“The court
appreciated this fallacy and stated that even though a legislation was passed
by the Congress, it cannot be contrary to the provisions of the Constitution.
The Constitution is the paramount law and cannot be amended by the legislature
through mere legislations passed during their day-to-day business.”
“Thus, it was
held that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and no other law can
violate any provision of the Constitution. On this basis, Section 13 of the
Judiciary Act, 1789 was held as violative of the Constitution and was hence,
struck down.”
As a result, the court practically denied Marbury’s remedy,
despite asserting that he is entitled to a legal remedy to enforce his vested
legal right.
Whether the Supreme Court can examine enacted
Statutes and the actions of the Executive for their legality and
constitutionality.
This issue, while not explicitly mentioned in the judgment,
is implicit within the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall. In his opinion, he
reiterated that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and cannot be
violated by any organ of the Federal Democracy.
Expanding upon this view, it was stated that the
Constitution prescribes certain limits on the powers of the Executive and the
Legislature. These limits would be meaningless if there is no authority to keep
a check on these organs. Thus, in this sense, the power of judicial review with
is implicit within the Constitution, since it is not expressly provided for.
Lastly, it was stated that if the courts were to look at the
law without reference to the Constitution, it would only be a useless document,
rather than one laying down the principles required to be followed by all
organs of the Federal Democracy that is the United States.
Thus, the USSC also made it clear that it had the power to
review Acts of the legislature and the actions of the executive in light of the
Constitution, thus establishing the principle of Judicial Review.
CONCLUSION
The court thus, reached the conclusion that Marbury had a
legal right to enforce his vested right to become the Justice of the Peace.
However, this right could not be enforced by issuing a writ of mandamus, as
such an action would be against the US Constitution, which is the paramount law
of the land.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DECISION
“The case of Marbury v. Madison is significant from both a legal, as well as a political
perspective, as it establishes certain principles of Constitutional Law, which
are now considered to be an essential part of a democracy. Apart from the principles
of judicial review and a litigable constitution on which the remainder of
constitutional law rests, the judgment also lays down the important principle
of the Supremacy of the Constitution and the Rule of Law, so as to ensure that
the organs of the State act within their limits. This also means that the
Supreme Court now stood at equal footing with the Legislature and the
Executive, instead of being an incongruous and purposeless institution.”
“The Court's
ruling in this case verified
an important precedent. The
interpretation that under the Constitution, the Supreme Court had the power of
judicial review means that the Court has the right to review acts of Congress
by extension and actions of the President. Thus, by asserting the power to
declare acts of Congress unconstitutional, Marshall, C.J., claimed for the
court a paramount position as the highest authority to interpret the
Constitution as its sole guardian.”
This can be seen in many subsequent cases as well, such as Fletcher
v. Peck[11],
where a state law which disallowed native Indians from holding complete
title to land was declared as unconstitutional. This was the first time a state
law was held unconstitutional, marking the constitution as truly, the ‘Supreme
Law of the Land’.
[1] “Marbury v. Madison, Britannica Encyclopedia, (Nov. 17,
2020) https://www.britannica.com/event/Marbury-v-Madison.”
[2] “U.S.
Const., Art. II, § 2.”
[3] “U.S.
Const., Art. III, § 1.”
[4] “U.S.
Const., Art. III, § 2.”
[5] “Judiciary
Act, 1 Stat. 73, §13.”
[6] Supra.
[7] “U.S.
Const., Art. II, § 3.”
[8] “An
Act to provide for the safe-keeping of the Acts, Records and Seal of the United
States, and for other purposes, 1 Stat. 68.”
[9] “The
King v. Baker et al., 3 Burr. 1266.”
[10] Supra.
[11] “Fletcher
v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 (1810).”
Comments
Post a Comment