In our great nation in which healthy and constructive disagreement is nurtured and harbored every day of the year, It is quite obvious that, yes indeed, the monumental case of Marbury vs Madison n 1803 is most definitely a pivotal and fundamental law in the politics of our nation. Even through the thick and thin of the dirtiest of dirty arguments, the main thing is that there will ALWAYS be a result. This result may be interpreted by many different people as a successful failure but without the final word that the Supreme Court provides us with, there would seemingly be no end to the arguments that could potentially continue eternally. With the limited power Supreme Court, no man is exempt from the law that binds this nation together as shown in the times that even presidents have been brought forth in the lawsuits that it addresses. Without the case of Marbury vs. Madison, the irreplaceable and unending benefits that the Supreme Court provides to the process of Democracy would be lost. With so many various political viewpoints and opinions being thrown around (especially in today's day and age) the Supreme Court provides an unwavering and unbiased analysis of various suits that may be deemed constitutional or not. Without the clear and uncorrupted viewpoint and analysis of our constitution as well as the result the Supreme Court provides, much of our rights that we are provided as citizens of these United States would potentially be lost.
Why Marbury V. Madison Still Matters
More than 200 years after the high court ruled, the decision in that landmark case continues to resonate.
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Tuesday, Feb. 24, is the 206th anniversary of Marbury v. Madison, the most important decision the Supreme Court—and perhaps any court—has ever issued. The late chief justice William Rehnquist hailed it as "the most significant single contribution the United States has made to the art of government"; nations around the world look to Marbury as they work to create institutions that will protect the rule of law. As the United States thinks anew about its commitment to these rules, it would serve us well to draw on the wisdom of this landmark decision.
Marbury v. Madison emerged from a fight about "midnight judges" in 1801. In the final days of his presidency, John Adams worked with Federalists in Congress to pack the federal courts and the new capital with Federalist appointees. Days after his inauguration, the new president, Thomas Jefferson (of the rival Democratic-Republican party) noticed a pile of letters sitting on a table at the State Department. Realizing that they were commissions for Federalists that mistakenly had not been sent, Jefferson forbade their delivery. One of the commissions was for an ambitious man named William Marbury.
Marbury sued James Madison, Jefferson's secretary of state, in the Supreme Court, claiming that he had a right to the commission. The court, headed by John Marshall (Jefferson's hated cousin), issued a preliminary order requiring the Jefferson administration to explain its position. Jefferson's Republicans exploded: they shut down the high court for more than a year. Finally, in February 1803, the court issued a unanimous opinion. It blasted Jefferson and Madison for not following the law by blocking delivery of the commissions. But then the court said that the law giving individuals the right to file a lawsuit directly to the Supreme Court was unconstitutional because, under the Constitution, the Supreme Court hears appeals only from other courts. It was the first time it had struck down an act of Congress. Marshall wrote, "It is emphatically the province and duty" of the courts "to say what the law is."
The story of Marbury contains important lessons. First, in the midst of disagreement about the Supreme Court's conclusions in particular cases, we sometimes forget to appreciate the genius of the American system—an independent judiciary with the last word on the law and the Constitution. When we hear an attempt to demonize judges or justices with whom we disagree, we should remember this shared commitment to the rule of law. As retired justice Sandra Day O'Connor emphasizes, our heritage should inspire us to fight attacks on an independent judiciary—whether they come from the left or right.
Second, the Marbury saga contains valuable cautionary tales. Its greatness lies in the fact that Marshall led the court to rise above being a predictable political player. Many expected Marshall to give the Federalists the result they fervently desired—an order compelling the appointment of Federalists like Marbury. Instead, Marshall took the court out of the political dynamic. For President Obama and victorious Democrats in Congress, Marbury is a reminder that being in the political majority doesn't mean you're above being on the wrong side of history on fundamental judicial points. (And for besieged congressional Republicans, the history of the embattled Federalists is similarly instructive: the Federalists' position as unyielding opponents of Jefferson's administration led to their extinction as a political party.)
Last, Marbury points out that greatness may arise from the messiest of political circumstances. Given the patchy, half-built Washington of the early 1800s—and given the unproven court that Marshall inherited—nothing seems more unlikely than that the era would forge a landmark in law and justice that would be an inspiration to the world more than two centuries later. The unlikely tale of Marbury v. Madison gives hope that the chaos and uncertainty of today's struggles may similarly yield unknown breakthroughs that endure for the ages.
Adapted from The Great Decision: Jefferson, Adams, Marshall, and The Battle For The Supreme Court, by Cliff Sloan and David McKean. ©2009 by Cliff Sloan and David McKean. To be published by PublicAffairs.
© 2009
Discuss