Marbury vs. Madison says you are full of the Poopy.
{...
Marbury v. Madison, legal case in which, on February 24, 1803, the
U.S. Supreme Court first declared an act of
Congress unconstitutional, thus establishing the doctrine of
judicial review. The court’s opinion, written by Chief
Justice John Marshall, is considered one of the foundations of U.S.
constitutional law.
In the weeks before
Thomas Jefferson’s inauguration as president in March 1801, the lame-duck Federalist Congress created 16 new circuit judgeships (in the Judiciary Act of 1801) and an unspecified number of new judgeships (in the Organic Act), which Adams proceeded to fill with Federalists in an effort to preserve his party’s control of the
judiciary and to frustrate the legislative agenda of Jefferson and his Republican (
Democratic-Republican) Party. Because he was among the last of those appointments (the so-called “midnight appointments”),
William Marbury, a
Federalist Party leader from Maryland, did not receive his commission before Jefferson became president. Once in office, Jefferson directed his secretary of state,
James Madison, to withhold the commission, and Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to issue a
writ of
mandamus to compel
Madison to act.
...
But Marshall, despite the political difficulties involved, recognized that he had a perfect case with which to expound a basic principle, judicial review, which would secure the Supreme Court’s primary role in
constitutional interpretation.
...
The chief justice recognized the dilemma that the case posed to the court. If the court issued the writ of mandamus, Jefferson could simply ignore it, because the court had no power to enforce it. If, on the other hand, the court refused to issue the writ, it would appear that the judicial branch of government had backed down before the
executive, and that Marshall would not allow. The solution he chose has properly been termed a tour de force. In one stroke, Marshall managed to establish the power of the court as the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, to
chastise the Jefferson administration for its failure to obey the law, and to avoid having the court’s authority challenged by the administration.
...
Marshall, adopting a style that would mark all his major opinions, reduced the case to a few basic issues. He asked three questions: (1) Did Marbury have the right to the commission? (2) If he did, and his right had been violated, did the law provide him with a remedy? (3) If it did, would the proper remedy be a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court? The last question, the crucial one, dealt with the jurisdiction of the court, and in normal circumstances it would have been answered first, since a negative response would have
obviated the need to decide the other issues. But that would have denied Marshall the opportunity to criticize Jefferson for what the chief justice saw as the president’s flouting of the law.
...}
www.thegatewaypundit.com
