|
Key
Excerpts from the Majority Opinion
Chief
Justice John Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court.
In
the order in which the court has viewed this subject, the
following questions have been considered and decided.
- Has
the applicant a right to the commission he demands?
- If
he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the
laws of his country afford him a remedy?
- If
they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing
from this court?
•
• •
In
order to determine whether he is entitled to this commission,
it becomes necessary to inquire whether he has been appointed
to the office. . . .
Mr.
Marbury . . . since his commission was signed by the president,
and sealed by the secretary of state, was appointed. . .
.
To
withhold the commission, therefore, is an act deemed by
the court not warranted by law, but violative of a vested
legal right.
This
brings us to the second inquiry; which is, 2. If he has
a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of
his country afford him a remedy? The very essence of civil
liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual
to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives
an injury. . . .
It
is then the opinion of the Court, 1. That by signing the
commission of Mr. Marbury, the president of the United States
appointed him a justice of peace . . . 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. 2. 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.
It
remains to be inquired whether, 3. He is entitled to the
remedy for which he applies. This depends on, 1. The nature
of the writ applied for. 2. The power of this court. 1.
The nature of the writ. . . .
This
writ, if awarded, would be directed to an officer of government,
and its mandate to him would be . . . "to do a particular
thing therein specified, which appertains to his office
and duty, and which the court has previously determined
or at least supposes to be consonant to right and justice
. . . "
These
circumstances certainly concur in this case. . . .
This,
then, is a plain case of a mandamus, either to deliver the
commission, or a copy of it from the record; and it only
remains to be inquired, Whether it can issue from this court.
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." The secretary
of state, being a person, holding an office under the authority
of the United States, is precisely within the letter of
the description; and if this court is not authorized to
issue a writ of mandamus to such an officer, it must be
because the law is unconstitutional. . . .
The
constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United
States in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as
congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish.
. . .
In
the distribution of this power it is declared that "the
supreme court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases
affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,
and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other
cases, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction.
. . . "
If
it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the
legislature to apportion the judicial power between the
supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that
body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded
further than to have defined the judicial power, and the
tribunals in which it should be vested.. . . If congress
remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction,
where the constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall
be original and original jurisdiction where the constitution
has declared it shall be appellate; the distribution of
jurisdiction, made in the constitution, is form without
substance. . . .
To
enable this court then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown
to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary
to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction. . . .
It
is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction, that
it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already
instituted, and does not create that cause. . . .
The
authority, therefore, given to the supreme court, by the
act establishing the judicial courts of the United States,
to issue writs of mandamus to public officers, appears not
to be warranted by the constitution. . . .
The
powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that
those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution
is written. . . .
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. . . .
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. . . .
Questions to Consider:
- If
the Supreme Court of the United States had issued the
writ of mandamus, how could it have forced Madison
to comply with the order? What would have happened if
he had ignored it? (In other words, does the Court have
enforcement power?)
- In
the Court's opinion, is Marbury entitled to his appointment?
- According
to the decision, does the Supreme Court of the United
States have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus
to force Madison to deliver the commission? Explain. Is
there any way to reverse the Court's decision?
- In
this case, Chief Justice John Marshall and the Court "gave
up some power in order to get more." Explain. What
power did they give up? What power did they gain? Why
did the Court do this?
- Why
does the judicial branch, as opposed to the executive
or legislative branch, have the power of judicial review?
- Imagine
that Jefferson, rather than Adams, had appointed the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court. Would the outcome of this
case, and the future of the country, have been different?
Why?
|
