Respuesta :
the federal courts could declare legislation, as well as executive and administrative actions, inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution (“unconstitutional”) and therefore null and void
Answer:
Marbury v. Madison was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1803. Let’s explore the key aspects of this case:
Background:
In the weeks before Thomas Jefferson’s inauguration as president in March 1801, the outgoing Federalist Congress created new circuit judgeships and other judicial positions.
Outgoing President John Adams appointed several Federalists to these positions to preserve his party’s control of the judiciary and frustrate Jefferson’s legislative agenda.
Among these appointments was William Marbury, who did not receive his commission before Jefferson became president.
Marbury’s Petition:
Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling Secretary of State James Madison to deliver his commission.
Court’s Decision:
Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the unanimous opinion.
Marbury was entitled to his commission, but the Court did not have the power to issue the writ of mandamus.
The Court held that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional to the extent it enlarged the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution permitted.
This decision established the principle of judicial review, allowing federal courts to strike down laws that violate the Constitution.
Significance:
Marbury v. Madison is considered the most important decision in American constitutional law.
It confirmed that the U.S. Constitution is actual law, not just a statement of principles.
It defined the boundary between the executive and judicial branches of the federal government.
In summary, the Court ruled that Marbury was entitled to his commission, but the Court lacked the power to issue the writ of mandamus. The case established the doctrine of judicial review.
Explanation:
