Posted on 07/19/2014 9:12:40 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
Do you know that the verdict in this case actually limited the Court’s power?
Following the loss of the presidency and Congress in the election of 1800, the lame-duck Federalist Congress enacted the Judiciary Act of February 3, 1801, creating 58 new federal judgeships and new circuit courts. Two weeks later, Congress created 42 justices of the peace in the District of Columbia. Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth resigned, and President John Adams named Secretary of State John Marshall to replace him.
The judicial commissions were signed by President Adams, and the Seal of the United States affixed by the Secretary of State the same day. But Adams’ term expired the next day, March 4, 1801, before the commissions could be delivered. The new Secretary of State, James Madison, acting under orders from Republican President Thomas Jefferson, refused to deliver the commissions.
One of these appointments was given to William Marbury, who was appointed to be a justice of the peace of the District of Columbia. Marbury, joined by three other similarly situated appointees (Dennis Ramsay, Robert Townsend Hooe, and William Harper), petitioned the Supreme Court, on January 31, 1803, for a writ of mandamus (we command) compelling delivery of the commissions. Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 provided that such writs might be issued.
On February 24, 1803, the Supreme Court dismissed Marbury’s suit on the grounds that the Court lacked jurisdiction. Chief Justice Marshall declared that...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
I wish the article had offered whatever were Marshall’s arguments for why, in his opinion, “section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 had empowered the Court to issue writs of mandamus in such cases, but that this was in violation of the Constitution”.
From THAT Marshall’s SCOTUS found it lacked the authority to force Jeffereson to issue the commissions, but what was THAT Constitutional argument of Marshall’s regarding section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789?????
Anyone?
The hallowed principle of judicial review: Founded on a purely political act and introduced as a clever gambit, with sacrificial lambs along the way. How much worse are things today?
Only because Congress has lacked the spine to establish the limits to the USSC;s power.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Congress has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the courts.
Congress may have power to limit the jurisdiction of the courts, but they never seem to use it do they?
In reality, people look to the courts as having final say on legislation. Such as the Obamacare lawsuit, or the homosexual marriage lawsuits. In such cases, everyone is looking to the courts to, in effect, set out the public policy in these areas.
In theory, any branch can ignore the other.
I don’t think they should limit jurisdiction. In short, that creates utter chaos. What, whoever is in power both gives and takes and changes jurisdiction?
No. BAD idea.
True. However if this was a "purely political" power grab by Marshall, he certainly took his time putting it to use.
The second time acts of Congress were declared unconstitutional was in 1857, those prohibiting slavery in territories, in the infamous Dred Scott case, which led directly to the WBTS.
Marshall had been dead for 25 years.
Jefferson would come to deeply regret this extra-constitutional elevation of the judiciary.
True. However, to my knowledge he never put forth an alternate method for settling constitutional issues finally. Peaceful final resolution of strong differences by a mechanism accepted as legitimate is the single most important function of any government. The alternative is civil war.
Congress has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the courts.
Quite so. But they must exercise that power, or it exists only in potentia.
This is why I get so tired of the constant and idiotic blather about "three co-equal branches of government established by the Constitution."
The Constitution did no such thing. Congress is supreme whenever it is united and in the mood to exercise its authority. It has the atomic weapons of impeachment to use against any judge or officer of the government, and it can regulate the powers of the Courts, besides the more "normal" legislative remedies.
It chooses not to use its powers because most congresscritters today are interested primarily in being re-elected. Drastic action to rein in the other two branches of government would almost by definition tick off large segments of the voters and endanger that re-election. Much easier to hand off potentially unpopular decisions to the other two branches.
So it ain't gonna happen. Not because Congress doesn't have the power, but because it refuses to use it.
Arrgghh.
Which is something the courts are not at all equipped to do.
As a result of such practices we have homosexual marriages mandated by courts in states that have had referendums on the subject and rejected the idea.
What we have today are imperial judges. Courts were never intended to be the last say on the law.
At least in Marbury v. Madison the court said we do not have jurisdiction. Courts rarely say that these days. They just decide that the law says what they want it to say.
So it ain't gonna happen. Not because Congress doesn't have the power, but because it refuses to use it.
Arrgghh.
Double Ditto
Like him or not, Marshall was a genius. He decided this case such that there was nothing that Jefferson or anyone else could do about it.
That's the government system intended by the Founders.
Possibly you should consider starting a drive to amend the Constitution appropriately to remove the power from Congress.
Probably not necessary, since I believe the power has only been used twice, not for 80 years, and then in rather limited fashion.
Well Andrew Jackson certainly ignored the USSC in the case of the Cherokee Indians being expelled from Georgia.
However Congress is hard to ignore if they decide to withhold money from the other branches.
Congress can not reduce the pay of judges but they do not have to supply funds to heat or cool court houses.
Congress needs to state that marriage is between one man and one woman and that no court can rule otherwise, and solve all this marriage problems.
Amen brother
They could but they won't. The courts understand that their purpose is to enact legislation that Congress would pay a penalty for, but that if the courts TRULY enacted a decision that the majority of congressmen really were opposed to, or the real Powers who control Congress, that the court would be slapped down real quick.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.