Supreme Court Stories: Marbury v. Madison
Summary
TLDRThe video script recounts the pivotal 1800 election and the ensuing judicial power struggle. Outgoing President John Adams, a Federalist, sought to retain influence by appointing 'Midnight Judges.' His successor, Thomas Jefferson, a Democrat-Republican, refused to deliver the commissions, leading to Marbury v. Madison. Chief Justice John Marshall's decision to declare part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional established the Supreme Court's authority of judicial review, a cornerstone of American constitutional law.
Takeaways
- 🗳️ The election of 1800 marked a significant political shift in the U.S., with Thomas Jefferson and the Democrat-Republicans defeating the Federalists led by John Adams.
- 👨⚖️ Adams, in his final days in office, appointed several Federalist judges to maintain his influence, which Jefferson opposed upon taking office.
- 🕒 The transition period between Adams and Jefferson's administrations, which extended into March, allowed for political maneuvering by the outgoing Federalist party.
- 📜 The Judiciary Act of 1801, nicknamed the 'Midnight Judges Act,' was an attempt by Adams to expand the federal judiciary and appoint more Federalist judges.
- 🏛️ John Marshall, who later became the Chief Justice, was involved in the delivery of these judicial commissions but faced a time constraint.
- 🚫 Thomas Jefferson, upon becoming president, found undelivered commissions and decided not to deliver them, reflecting his resentment towards the Federalist influence in the judiciary.
- 📬 William Marbury, one of the affected judges, sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court to force the delivery of his commission.
- 🤔 John Marshall faced a dilemma in deciding the Marbury v. Madison case, balancing the desire to support the Federalist cause with the need to maintain the court's authority.
- 📝 Marshall's opinion in the case raised three key questions: the legal harm to Marbury, the existence of a legal remedy, and the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to act.
- 🚫 Marshall found that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which allowed the Supreme Court to issue the writ of mandamus, was unconstitutional as it expanded the court's original jurisdiction beyond what was outlined in the Constitution.
- 🛃 The case of Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review, giving the Supreme Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional, thus defining its role as a co-equal branch of government.
Q & A
What significant event in U.S. history is referred to in the script?
-The significant event referred to is the election of 1800, where Thomas Jefferson and the Democrat-Republicans defeated the Federalists led by John Adams.
Why did Thomas Jefferson not want the judges appointed by John Adams?
-Jefferson did not want those judges because they were appointed by the opposing Federalist party, and he aimed to reduce Federalist influence in the judiciary.
What was the 'Midnight Judges Act' and why was it passed?
-The 'Midnight Judges Act' was a nickname for the law passed by the Federalists to expand the number of judgeships in the federal judiciary. It was an attempt by John Adams and his party to maintain their influence even after losing the presidency.
Who was John Marshall before becoming the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?
-Before becoming the Chief Justice, John Marshall was the Secretary of State and was responsible for delivering the commissions to the new judges appointed by Adams.
What is a writ of mandamus and why did Marbury request it from the Supreme Court?
-A writ of mandamus is a court order compelling someone to execute a duty that the law imposes. Marbury requested it to compel the delivery of his commission as a federal judge, which was not delivered by the new Jefferson administration.
What dilemma did Chief Justice John Marshall face in the Marbury v. Madison case?
-Marshall faced the dilemma of whether to rule in favor of Marbury, potentially angering the new administration and risking the Court's authority, or to uphold the law and the Constitution, which could have set a precedent of judicial review.
What was the significance of the Judiciary Act of 1789 in the Marbury v. Madison case?
-The Judiciary Act of 1789 was significant because it contained a section that expanded the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, which Marshall found to be unconstitutional, leading to the establishment of judicial review.
What is the concept of judicial review and why is it important?
-Judicial review is the power of the courts to examine laws and declare them unconstitutional if they conflict with the Constitution. It is important because it allows the judiciary to check the actions of the other branches of government, ensuring adherence to the Constitution.
How did the case of Marbury v. Madison impact the power of the Supreme Court?
-The case established the Supreme Court's power to interpret the Constitution and declare laws or parts of laws null and void if they are found to be unconstitutional, thus solidifying the Court's role as a co-equal branch of government.
What was the immediate consequence of the Supreme Court's decision in Marbury v. Madison for the new Jefferson administration?
-The immediate consequence was that the Supreme Court declared a law of Congress unconstitutional for the first time, asserting its authority to review and potentially overturn legislative actions, which could have implications for the administration's policies.
What was the broader historical impact of the Marbury v. Madison case on the U.S. legal system?
-The case had a profound impact by establishing the principle of judicial review, which allows the courts to check the constitutionality of laws and actions by the executive and legislative branches, thereby shaping the balance of power among the branches of government.
Outlines
🗳️ The Federalists' Last Stand: Midnight Judges
This paragraph details the political maneuvering by John Adams and the Federalists after losing the 1800 election to Thomas Jefferson and the Democrat-Republicans. Adams sought to maintain Federalist influence by appointing numerous judges during the final hours of his presidency, an event known as the 'Midnight Judges Act.' However, when Jefferson took office, he refused to deliver the commissions for these appointments, leading to a significant political clash. This decision laid the groundwork for the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison.
⚖️ Marbury v. Madison: Establishing Judicial Review
This paragraph explains the legal arguments and decisions made in the Marbury v. Madison case, which arose from Jefferson's refusal to deliver the judicial commissions. Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in this case established the principle of judicial review, allowing the Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional. Marshall ruled that while Marbury had a right to his commission, the Court could not issue a writ of mandamus because the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that expanded the Court's original jurisdiction was unconstitutional. This case defined the Supreme Court's role in interpreting the Constitution.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Election of 1800
💡Federalists
💡Judiciary Act of 1789
💡Midnight Judges Act
💡John Marshall
💡Writ of Mandamus
💡Judicial Review
💡James Madison
💡Marbury v. Madison
💡Constitutional Conflict
Highlights
The election of 1800 marked a political shift with Thomas Jefferson's victory over John Adams, leading to a period of political maneuvering by the outgoing Federalists.
John Adams, in his final days in office, appointed Federalist judges to maintain his party's influence, an action that would later be challenged.
The 'Midnight Judges Act' was a last-ditch effort by Adams and the Federalists to expand the federal judiciary and secure their legacy.
John Marshall, who would later become Chief Justice, was involved in the delivery of these judicial commissions, highlighting the intertwined nature of politics and judiciary.
Thomas Jefferson's refusal to deliver the undelivered judicial commissions was a clear political move against the Federalist judges.
Marbury's case for a writ of mandamus to the Supreme Court was an attempt to circumvent Jefferson's political decision.
The irony of John Marshall, who was supposed to deliver Marbury's commission, now deciding on the case involving Marbury himself.
The Congress's suspension of the Supreme Court for a year was a warning to Marshall and a test of judicial independence.
Marshall's dilemma was between upholding the Federalist legacy and not antagonizing the new Democratic-Republican administration.
Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison involved three key questions regarding legal harm, remedy, and the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.
The landmark decision that President Jefferson's refusal to deliver the commission was illegal, setting a precedent for the rule of law.
The revelation that Marbury had a legal right to sue due to not receiving his commission, establishing the principle of judicial review.
Marshall's surprising turn in the case, questioning the constitutionality of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and its expansion of the Court's original jurisdiction.
The declaration that part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional, a bold move that established the principle of judicial review.
The significance of Marbury v. Madison in defining the Supreme Court's power to interpret the Constitution and declare laws null and void.
The establishment of judicial review as the Supreme Court's greatest power, allowing it to check and balance the other branches of government.
The enduring impact of Marbury v. Madison on the U.S. legal system, solidifying the Court's role in constitutional interpretation.
Transcripts
It goes back to the election of 1800,
when Thomas Jefferson and the Democrat-Republicans
beat the Federalists of John Adams.
And it's full of politics because
Adams, the last time he was in office,
appointed these judges.
And when Jefferson came in,
he decided he didn't want those judges.
Back then,
the inauguration, the change of administration...
it didn't really happen until March,
so you had this period where
Congress was in session,
but the president really hadn't changed.
In that two or three months,
the Federalists and President Adams,
who had just lost,
they realized
they're about to become the minority party
for the first time ever.
And both the executive
and the legislative branches
were gonna be dominated by their opponents.
So, John Adams and his Federalist colleagues
are trying to do whatever they can
to stay in power.
So, one of the plans that they devise
is to expand the number of judgeships
in the federal judiciary.
Adams's thought in all this was,
on the way out,
I'm going to appoint a whole bunch of judges
and they're gonna carry on my legacy.
They passed a law
that is nicknamed the Midnight Judges Act.
John Adams is literally signing judicial commissions,
nominating people,
getting them confirmed by the Senate,
into the waning hours of his presidency,
before Jefferson takes office.
And what's interesting about this
is that John Marshall,
who ultimately becomes chief justice
of the Supreme Court
as a part of this whole process,
previously, he is secretary of state,
and he's the one that physically has to
deliver the commission
to all of these new judges.
But they ran out of time.
Whenever Thomas Jefferson comes into office,
he realizes that there's all these
undelivered judicial commissions
for Federalist judges.
There's a stack of commissions on the desk,
and Jefferson says,
we don't want Federalists as judges.
And he orders his secretary of state,
James Madison,
to not deliver them.
It's really a political decision.
Jefferson resented the Federalists;
he thought there were too many Federalists
in the judiciary.
So he wouldn't deliver these appointments.
One of these judges was
Marbury.
It just so happened that
Marbury had a friend
who was the former attorney general
for the United States.
And his friends said,
well, there was a statute passed
several years prior
that allowed the Supreme Court
the authority to issue
something called a writ of mandamus.
A writ of mandamus –
it's basically a mandate.
So Congress said,
if need be
Supreme Court, you can mandate
that something happen.
So, Marbury says,
I know – I'll ask the Supreme Court
for a writ of mandamus
to give me the commission as a federal judge.
Now, there's a lot of irony in this
because John Marshall,
who was the Supreme Court Chief Justice,
was also in charge of delivering
the appointments.
John Marshall,
who had wanted to deliver the commission
to Marbury in the first place,
but just ran out of time.
So, John Marshall gets this request
He's like, I really want Marbury
to get this commission.
He's a Federalist.
On the other hand,
I have this new administration
full of anti-Federalists;
I don't want to piss them off.
And as evidence for that belief,
the Congress of the United States
actually suspends
the Supreme Court for a full year.
This was a signal to John Marshall
and the other justices on the bench
that if you decide this case
in the wrong way
against the Democratic-Republicans,
against the Jefferson administration,
there are going to be dire consequences.
So, John Marshall
is faced with a dilemma.
If Marshall rules
that Jefferson has to turn over the commissions,
he's going to ignore the court order.
Imagine that for a second.
A president of the United States's
secretary of state ignoring an order
from the United States Supreme Court.
What precedent would that set?
It would make the Supreme Court
an inferior branch
of the federal government.
And what's remarkable about this case
is the way John Marshall navigates this decision.
In Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion,
he essentially poses three different questions.
First, he wants to know
whether or not there's some sort of legal harm
suffered by William Marbury.
He says, fundamentally, that
what the president did was illegal.
By refusing to deliver the commission,
President Jefferson did not faithfully execute the law.
Next, he wants to know
whether there's a remedy at law
for those legal injuries.
And Marshall says
because Marbury didn't receive that commission,
he has a right to sue.
And so here we are,
now two-thirds of the way through the opinion,
and it looks like Marbury's about to win.
Then we get to that third question:
Can the Supreme Court do anything about it?
And Marshall turns around,
and basically does a 180-degree turn,
and says, but we have a problem.
He decides to go back
to the Judiciary Act of 1789.
And he finds
that this writ of mandamus
was an expansion of original jurisdiction.
It expanded the power that the Court has
under the Constitution.
What would happen
if we could add to the Court's original jurisdiction
outlined in the Constitution
just by passing legislation?
Well, that means you could amend the Constitution
with any old act of legislation.
Why not amend Article I,
the powers of Congress?
Why not amend Article II,
the powers of the presidency?
So, what does Marshall do?
He says, you know what,
I don't think that that part
of the Judiciary Act of 1789
is Constitutional.
Chief Justice John Marshall reasons that
the Judiciary Act of 1789
essentially amends the Constitution.
The Supreme Court
doesn't have the power
to issue a mandate
that something happen.
Therefore, the part of the Judiciary Act of 1789,
section 13,
that adds to the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction,
must be null and void.
It cannot stand because it directly conflicts
with Article III, section 2
of the United States Constitution.
And as a result,
he declared a law of Congress unconstitutional.
And from then on,
established the precedent
for judicial review.
Judicial review.
Judicial review,
which is the Court's greatest power
that only the Supreme Court
can say what the Constitution is.
This ability to examine laws,
to compare them to the Constitution,
and when there's a discrepancy,
to actually declare that law,
or part of that law,
null and void.
It is a seminal case
that defines the power
of the United States Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court today
has the power to interpret the Constitution
and say what the law is
solely because of Marbury versus Madison.
Посмотреть больше похожих видео
The JUDICIAL Branch [AP Gov Review Unit 2 Topic 8 (2.8)]
Judicial Review: Crash Course Government and Politics #21
Top 10 Court Cases that Changed America
Article III For Dummies: The Judiciary Explained
Federalist 78, EXPLAINED [AP Gov Required Documents]
The Rise of POLITICAL PARTIES & the Age of JEFFERSON [APUSH Review 4.2] Period 4: 1800-1848
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)