Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Historical Background
The earliest Chief Justices had very little impact on the direction of the Supreme Court. But John
Marshall, who served from 1801 to 1835, influenced the action of the Supreme Court in ways
still felt in the United States today. Early in Marshall's term as Chief Justice, a seemingly
insignificant case came before the Supreme Court. However, that case, Marbury v. Madison,
became one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in United States history.
Circumstances of the Case
When Thomas Jefferson became President in March 1801, he learned of Adams's attempt to pack
the court with Federalist judges. He also discovered the failure to deliver the remaining
commissions. To prevent these Federalists from becoming justices of the peace, Jefferson
instructed his Secretary of State, James Madison, to refuse the appointments.
Marbury went to the Supreme Court in an attempt to gain his post. He wanted the Court to issue
an order forcing Madison to give Marbury his commission The Judiciary Act of 1789 had given
the Supreme Court the power to issue such an order.
The Court's Decision
Chief Justice Marshall held that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional because Congress
attempted to grant the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus against US
government officials, an authority not specifically relegated to the court in Article III of the constitution.
Marshall also declared the Judicial Branch had authority to check the power of the Executive and
Legislative branches by determining whether laws or actions conform with constitutional principles.
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who
apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws
conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each."
-Chief Justice John Marshall
Gerard Beloin’s Summary
In the case of Marbury V. Madison, 1802, the US Supreme Court ruled that "An act of congress
repugnant to the US Constitution cannot become law." And, "The courts as well as other
departments are bound to take notice."
If the Courts and the State do nothing about these heinous death threats against a declared
candidate for the US Senate, criminal threatening, extortion, arson, murder and murder for hire
schemes will become a legitimate form of political discourse in the State of NH as long as they
are committed by agents for the state tied to the Shaheen political machine.