In the Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) case, President John Adams had selected Williams Marbury to serve as the judge in charge if peace commission in Washington, DC. However, James Madison, the Secretary of State, declined to provide the details of the President’s appointment (Skelton & Barker III, n.d.). Thereby, Marbury sued Madison so that he could obtain the document and assume his duties. The case became one of the effective judicial decisions as the U.S. Chief Justice John Marshall invoked the principle of checks and balances, which served as a means to regulate the powers of the federal government. Under the new ruling, Justice Marshall stated that it is unconstitutional for the Congress to pass a law, and later the President assents to it (Skelton & Barker III, n.d.). This decision implied that only the Supreme Court has the right and authority to analyze the provisions of law. Besides, the ruling mandated the Supreme Court the role of interpreting the law and applying it depending on the situation presented. For example, if two laws conflict with each other, the Supreme Court had the role of deciding the applicability of each of them (Skelton & Barker III, n.d.). Chief Justice Marshall asserted that the powers of the judiciary should be of equal magnitude as the executive and legislature. Besides, Chief Justice Marshall enlisted the Supreme Court as the body with dominion in all the cases involving the ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls since they are directly involved with the state (Skelton & Barker III, n.d.). As a result, the government officers could reveal the details of the presidential appointments in the Supreme Court unless there is no classified information as granted by the U.S. Constitution.
Chief Justice Marshall reasoned that there was a mistake in allowing Congress to make decisions affecting the public officers. He believed that the power of nominating a person to the Senate resides with the President (Skelton & Barker III, n.d.). Therefore, the President can decide at his or her discretion and can also remove the officer. However, if the President has not decided to remove the appointed official from office, then such a person has to exercise their duty per the law. Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress might not interpret such a law since it was used to making irrational decisions. Thus, Chief Justice Marshall ruled that the Supreme Court has the right to determine the rights of an appointed official (Skelton & Barker III, n.d.). In the case involving Marbury, Chief Justice Marshall noted that the validity of his appointment was subject to judicial authority. Primarily, the Supreme Court granted Marbury the legal right to the commission that he was supposed to lead. Chief Justice Marshall reasoned that a presidential appointee directly serves the duty of the executive. Thus, the legislature should not be involved or interfere with the responsibilities of such an officer. Besides, Chief Justice Marshall believed that there were incidences in which an official can be removed from an office due to politically-motivated decisions. In such circumstances, a person needs legal remedy and, thus, granted the Supreme Court the power to preserve peace, justice, order, and proper governance (Skelton & Barker III, n.d.). Under this premise, the Supreme Court is the only body that can listen to both parties and deliver an impartial decision. As a result, the Court interprets and invalidates the laws to ensure that justice and proper governance coexist.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Arguably, the doctrine of judicial review is in line with the U.S. Constitution. Before delivering the decision, Chief Justice Marshall claimed that any law that clash with the Constitution is invalid (“ Marbury v. Madison (1803),” n.d.). Concerned that the Federalist judges may not uphold the rule of law, Chief Justice Marshall noted that there is a need for a principled and pragmatic solution. He believed that Marbury was performing his constitutional duty by using the Secretary of State to allow his commission to assume its duty. In the ruling of Marbury v. Madison , it was the Congress that was acting unconstitutional and thus, there was a need for a doctrine of judicial review (“ Marbury v. Madison (1803),” n.d). If the Supreme Court had not assumed the role of being the sole interpreter of the law, then there would have been a political confrontation involving the judiciary and executive. As stipulated in the U.S. Constitution, the courts have the role of interpreting and not making the laws. Thus, the doctrine of judicial review was simply Chief Justice Marshall’s way of upholding the Court’s prestige and power.
Moreover, the doctrine of judicial review has been beneficial in American politics. It has enabled the Supreme Court to keep both the legislature and the executive in check. For example, when the Senate impeaches a president, the Supreme Court has the authority to preside over the trial to decide whether or not a president can be removed from the office (Liptak, 2019). Over the years, the Supreme Court has questioned and investigated the validity of the decisions that both the executive and the legislature made. This move ensures that these parties are following the guidelines stipulated under the U.S. Constitution. Besides, the doctrine of judicial review grants the Supreme Court the power to evaluate the reasons for appointing certain officials and the extent of their duties. As such, the American political system has been fair since the judiciary serves as an impartial authority that grants officials legal rights to exercise their responsibilities within the provisions of the Constitution.
References
Liptak, A. (2019). Can Trump challenge his impeachment in the Supreme Court? The New York Times . Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/25/us/trump-impeachment-supreme-court.html
Marbury v. Madison (1803). (n.d.). Our Documents . Retrieved from https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=19
Skelton, C., & Barker III, C.R. (n.d.). Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) . Justia US Supreme Court. Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/
