The case of Marbury v. Madison
The American legal system is Anglo Saxon and significantly different from the continental legal system, with much broader powers of the Supreme Court, which does not recognize the justice of other countries.
The American judicial system is known for being based on the case law, and because of the time the Supreme Court had more weight, while at the end of the judicial power did not become competent to say what law is. The entire American public sovereignty is divided into three mutually independent, equitable, and consistent powers. Framers of the Constitution are, insisted on the independence of the judiciary, guarantees of the independence, so it seems that the judiciary has greater equality and independence of the legislature, and perhaps the executive branch. The Supreme Court is the highest judicial body in the United States, and the most important political power of the court is that he has the right to annul any act of the legislature or the executive, which is not in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. This power is not assigned by the Constitution, but entered into practice through presidency.
In 1803, the Supreme Court discussed case Marbury v Madison. This is one of the most important cases in the history of the Supreme Court of the United States, and a landmark on the basis, of which is for the first time in the history of the judiciary has been established the ability of the court to interpret provisions of the law and bring them into conformity with the Constitution . Because of the great importance of this case, it is necessary to know more about the case and the decision of this case. Everything goes back in 1800, when Thomas Jefferson won the presidential elections. During the period between the election and inauguration, 1801st Congress approves the revision of the law regardin judiciary from the 1789th, bringing such serious changes to the judicial organization of the United States. This act named forty-two of the peace judges, among who was William Marbury.
The appointments were approved by the Senate, but had to be regulated by the appointed, that it was necessary to submit documents for office, which represented only a formality. However, the Secretary of State has failed to deliver within the majority of appointments and assumed that his successor, James Madison, deliver the remaining, as it was a routine matter. However, on the orders of the new president, Thomas Jefferson, it did not happen. He also passed the Law on the Judiciary in 1801 overturned the law on the judiciary in 1802. William Marbury, one of the plaintiffs judge who has not submitted nomination for the position, is then invested appeal directly to the Supreme Court, which asked the court to order the Secretary of State Madison to deliver the appointment.
Supreme Judge in this case was John Marshall. He argued that the Court’s Marbury had a legal right to be appointed as the magistrate, thus setting by President John Adams. The document that was signed by President Adams is valid, because it has the seal of the United States, which has put former secretary of state. This is an important and irrefutable proof and that means that any refusal or failure of the decision is a violation of his rights and the law of the state, that it provides legal protection. However, Judge John Marshall did not dare to order the issuance of the relevant certificate, because it was likely that the new government refuse it. Marshall knew, therefore, that it can easily be ignored, which would position the court was weakened and the judges would be subject to possible political consequences , and even dismissal ( impeachment ) . Due to the inability of the Supreme Court to enforce their decisions, it reputation would be in ruins. Thus, the court unanimously ruled that Marbury is entitled to the appointment, but since the court has no power to force Madison to deliver it to him, the appeal is therefore dismissed.
The reason is stated in judicial laws of 1789th, addressing to Marbury an appeal to the Supreme Court on this issue. The court decided that the act is unconstitutional, and therefore void. Marbury never became a Justice of the Peace.
In its reasoning, Marshall stated famous words: „Whether a law that violates the Constitution can become the law of the state? The Constitution is the supreme and highest law that cannot be changed by ordinary means, or at the level of ordinary legislation, so we cannot, like other laws, change it whenever it pleases the legislature. "
The case the jurisdiction of the judicial power stations regulates matters of the law, and decides what is right. If there are two cases or regulations that are in conflict, the court that decides who will be the case, that rule applied .Because courts must respect the Constitution and to obey, because the Constitution is the highest legal act, it means that the Constitution actually defines what is legally valid. Even the former president of the U.S. Supreme Court Charles Hadzis said: „We are under the Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is. That is the American Constitution is that for which consent five of the nine judges of the Constitutional Court. "
I believe that the Chief Justice Marshall responsibly and professionally rendered a judgment, perhaps I am unaware of its great importance for a variety of development and the huge potential of the institution of judicial review and judicial activism. Marshall's position is finest example of legal reasoning and reasonable and measured response. Supreme Court granted a prominent and important role in interpreting the Constitution. It is these actions actually put theory basis for carrying out judicial review ( judicial review) , giving their views on the relationship between the judicial and political branches of government . Through this precedent, the Supreme Court took the liberty that he, not Congress or the executive branch decide on the constitutionality of laws and regulations, as well as to declare acts of Congress and the president unconstitutional. Treatment judge John Marshall justified it, because it made a positive impact overall legal system, both in common law and in civil law. This decision provided the elasticity and durability of the U.S. Constitution, which applies for a visa more than two centuries.
So far considered the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States generally does not exceed the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court instances in other states. He would not be due they received political significance outlined at the beginning of this article. Special political sides in post-revolutionary America; not precise and far-sighted constitutional provision was stipulated by the Supreme Court - the embodiment of the entire judiciary - appears as the guardian of the constitutional order and the interpreter constitutional norms. The roots of constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court lies in the federalist fear of dominance too democratic -minded Congress in American political life.
According to Hamilton, the leading representatives of the Federalists, The Supreme Court, through judicial review of legislative activities of Congress, ensures that the will of the whole people, is expressed in the Constitution. Constitution is above the will of Congres work. Expressed in legislative enactments, another prominent Federalist , emphasized the necessity of interpreting the Constitution left to the court reasoned independent judges , leaving the outcome conflicts and disorder inherent political processes.
After all, such a role of the Federal Supreme Court was not unprecedented: even before the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the supreme courts of some states have put aside laws passed by the legislature because estimated that these laws are in conflict with the constitution of the respective states. Judicial review of the constitutionality of states, therefore, is more than the federal Constitution. However, this does not mean that the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed from the outset as the sole interpreter of constitutional provisions and screen them based on the order. In 1803, it was called the Chief Justice John Marshall, in explanation of the verdict in the case of Marbury v. Madison. It was Marshall who argued that the duty of the Supreme Court should repeal the unconstitutional law is necessary consequence of its duty to uphold the constitution; the duties of the entire performance of the judges are bound by oath that passed. Because of the crucial importance of the Marshall, reasoning of the judgment in the said dispute for the establishment and development of constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States cite some more of his arguments. In addition to the second level, Art. 3 of the Constitution provides for original jurisdiction of the Federal Supreme Court in all disputes concerning the ambassador and other diplomatic and consular representatives , as well as cases in which a party to participate in some U.S. states .
Under current legislation, the Supreme Court has first instance and exclusive jurisdiction in all disputes between two or more states - states. Its jurisdiction remains the first instance but not exclusively in cases in which the plaintiff or defendant ambassador or other diplomatic or consular representative of a foreign state , in all disputes between the United States and States - States, as well as lawsuits and other proceedings by the state - states waged against citizens other states - states or against foreign citizens. Cases belonging to the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court are very rare: one or two cases during the session. Since the full session of the court is unsuitable for dealing with such cases, their consideration is entrusted to the judge - Rapporteur, the preeminent branch of law which belongs to the dispute .
His report was submitted to the court, which decides whether to accept the report in its entirety or make changes. Although the participation of the jury at trial before the Supreme Court theoretically possible, after a dispute in Georgia. Brails ford out in 1794. had not recorded its share .
The State of Louisiana requested the participation of the jury, but the Supreme Court broke into her request because the dispute falls within the litigation that leads to the application of the principle of fairness. It was not dispute that are settled on the basis of law, and therefore the parties do not enjoy guarantees of trial by jury provided VII amendment to the Constitution. First of all , Marshall is the belief , inherent throughout the revolutionary generation , the basis on which rises the entire U.S. statehood is the attitude originally belongs to the people the right to determine such principles of future political power that will best suit his need for happiness. But he immediately adds that this right ( constituent power ) people or can or should be applied daily . Once established , these principles should be considered fundamental in the sense that all of them perform political and legal institutions USA .
Authority who has established must, by the logic of his exercise , to be sovereign and unlimited. True, Marshall never mentions the sovereignty people - at that time extremely radical doctrine that in France led to the total collapse of the state system , but now imposes substantial correspondence between the will of the Constituent American ideologues and Rousseau's general will arising from the social contract .
In addition to the principal concern of constitutional authorities , Marshall emphasizes the extraordinary , the extraordinary , almost unique character of its exercise . Precisely because it is rarely used , standards established by its permanent are not liable to quick and easy changes . Chief Justice norms it establishes nowhere called absolutely immutable , his entire speech , but full of conviction that they should be as rare as modified. From the primary and unlimited constituent power overall organization of the state . It has a positive and a negative aspect : framers of the Constitution empowers the individual parts of state government , but at the same time determines the limits of those powers . Based constitutional jurisdiction.
The U.S. Supreme Court , Marshall emphasizes the negative , limiting function of the Constitution and transformed the judicial branch in general and especially the Supreme Court as the sole interpreter of constitutional norms as well as the sole guarantor of their implementation.
Since the limits of the executive branch self-evident and firmly rooted the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition (is not itself a revolution was a struggle against the tyranny of the British executive power ?) , it focuses on the relationship of the legislative government to constitutional limitations . The powers are lawmakers defined and limited; Constitution was written in order to eliminate concerns about their existence and extent . Why should the legislative authority became more limited and their boundaries guided by the Constitution if legislators able at any time to bypass the bounds set ? The difference between the constitutional rule and dictatorship , between limited and unlimited government clears If these restrictions are not constrained arbitrariness of those who are forced ,
If the same legal force and have permitted illegal acts . Marshall to end intensified following dilemma : either the Constitution has greater legal force of law that are inconsistent with it , or legislative branch of government can change The Constitution of the common law . He points out that there is no third solution to this dilemma . Or the Constitution contains the highest legal standards and can not be modified by conventional legal means, or they have the same legal force as the ordinary legislative acts , and they can the legislature - such as common law - changed whenever he pleases .
If we accept the first alternative , the legislative act contrary to the Constitution not part of the legal system ; accept you , however , another , written constitutions would represent pointless efforts of the people to limit a power which by its nature can not be bound .
All the nations that have adopted written constitutions are considered that they contain the highest legal standards and fudamentalne nation ; theoretical basis any such state must be the position that the legislative act which is contrary with the Constitution is null and void . This statement follows logically from the fact of written constitution and by the Supreme Court as one of the basic principles American society . If a legislative act is contrary to the Constitution is void , does it notwithstanding its nullity obliges courts and have legal effect ? In other words , whether such a law , although it is not part of the legal system , contains a norm that acts as part of the legal system . Subtract the courts the right to cancel all legal consequences of the law contrary to the Constitution would be to actually abolish the difference between the legal force of the Constitution and the law.
The primary responsibilities and obligations of the court branch is to determine the specific content of legal norms , " the court shall impose what is right " in this case. Those who apply the legal standard in individual cases must necessarily formulate and interpret norm that apply . If two laws contain mutually conflicting norms , courts must decide on the legal validity of any such standards . If the law inconsistent with the Constitution and the individual case related norms and the Constitution and an opposite law , the court must decide whether to apply to the case standards contained in the Constitution or the law . The obligation to make such decision derives from the very nature of judicial power . If the courts should take into account the norms contained in the Constitution , and if the Constitution has greater legal force than the ordinary legislative Act , the dispute that can be applied legal norms from both sources must be resolved in accordance with constitutional norms . Those who deny the principle that courts should apply the Constitution as the supreme source of law necessarily believe that the courts should close their eyes to the Constitution and to care only about the law.
This attitude undermines the very foundation of any written constitution. This would mean that the law which is in accordance with the principles and theory of the American system of government as a whole null and void in practice, though it becomes quite effective and binding document . It would further meant that if the legislature does something that is prohibited, such action , regardless of its explicit ban in reality products legal action . This would be the legislative branch, gave a practical and real omnipotence while setting firm limits of its operation.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=5&invol=137
Marbury v. Madison | LII / Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137
Retrieved from www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1417
Retrieved from https://student.ashford.edu/secure/Student/loginstu.aspx?ReturnUrl=/secure/student/StuPortal.aspx
Retrieved from https://student.ashford.edu/secure/Student/loginstu.aspx?ReturnUrl=/secure/student/StuPortal.aspx
Retrieved from http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf