Beyond Books homepage

Hello, GUEST
Log in

BackLinksNext
Study Questions
Practice Quiz
Key Terms
Printable Maps
Add to Portfolio
Merriam-Webster's CollegiateŽ Dictionary
Click to hide Teasers
Fun!
How is a judicial court like a basketball court? This site describes the court structure for the State of North Carolina, not the federal judiciary.
Go to http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/homecourt/who.html

In the News
Take a look at this political cartoon about judicial review and the recent Microsoft antitrust trial. Advertising Alert ... Click for info
Go to http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/sage/ss991110.htm

Check it Out!
"You have the right to remain silent ..." and examine some original documents from Supreme Court history.
Go to http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/tr22a.html#supreme

Search BB
Beyond Books Home Programs Your Desk Portfolios Help
American Government
The Judicial Branch
Cite this page Printer-friendly page

9a. The Creation of the Federal Courts

John Marshall was chief justice of the United States from 1801 to 1835. His decisions defined constitutional law and judicial precedent.
"An act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void — it is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is." -John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison (1803)

The Constitution painstakingly defines the structure and functions of the legislative (Congressional) branch of the government. It clearly (although less thoroughly) addresses the responsibilities and powers of the president.

But, it treats the judicial branch almost as an afterthought. ARTICLE III specifically creates only one court (the SUPREME COURT), allows judges to serve for life and to receive compensation, broadly outlines original and appellate jurisdiction, and outlines the trial procedure for and limitations of congressional power against those accused of treason.

That's all.

Marshall Marshals the Court

William Marbury's lawsuit gave Marshall the opportunity to institute the power of judicial review.
The framers of the Constitution were clearly more interested in their experiment with legislative government than in the creation of a judicial system. Had it not been for JOHN MARSHALL, the third chief justice of the Supreme Court, the judicial branch might well have developed into a weak, ineffective check on the legislature and the presidency.

But Marshall changed everything by interpreting a power "implied" by Article III. JUDICIAL REVIEW, or the power of the courts to overturn a law, was the vehicle he used to create the most powerful judicial branch in the history of the world.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

The power of judicial review may be traced to the famous 1803 court case of MARBURY V. MADISON. The election of 1800 gave that the presidency to an opposing political party for the first time. Fearing that the newly elected Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic Republican, would undo his policies, Federalist president John Adams, sought to "pack" the courts with Federalist judges. He worked feverishly on the judicial appointments until the very end of his presidency. When he left office, several of the orders were left on the secretary of state's desk, waiting to be delivered.

As secretary of state, James Madison refused to deliver the commissions of a number of "midnight judges," judges who had been appointed by John Adams in the last days of his term.
The new secretary of state, JAMES MADISON, saw what Adams was up to, and refused to carry out the commissions. William Marbury, a Federalist whose commission was not delivered, sued Madison and demanded that the Supreme Court force Madison to act. Marbury's demand was based on the WRIT OF MANDAMUS, a power given to the Court by the Judiciary Act of 1789 to command actions by officials of the executive branch.

Chief Justice Marshall faced a huge dilemma. What if he commanded Madison to deliver the commissions and the secretary of state ignored his command? What could Marshall do to enforce the decision? The Court had no army, nor any other means to back up the command. If Marshall did nothing, the quarrel could spill over to Congress and tear the new country apart before it even got off the ground.

The Writ Stuff

Marshall's decision was to declare the writ of mandamus unconstitutional, claiming that Congress had passed a law "repugnant to the Constitution." He declared that because Article III did not grant the judicial branch the power of the writ of mandamus, and so the Supreme Court was unable to order Madison to act. Of course, Jefferson and Madison were happy with the decision, and the crisis passed, with only a disgruntled prospective justice (MARBURY) to protest.


The constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it....

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void....

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. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
 
      John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison (1803)

The Supreme Court Gets the Final Word

No one seemed to understand the grand implications of what Marshall had done: he had created the power of judicial review. This established the precedent that only the federal courts could interpret the Constitution. This power has given federal judges the final word in settling virtually every major issue that has challenged the government in American history.

Today, the judicial branch not only provides strong checks and balances to the executive and legislative branches, it possesses a tremendous amount of policy-making power in its own right. This power rests more on the precedent (a principle that later justices followed) of judicial review set by Marshall in 1803 than on the provisions of the Constitution.


See you in court!

Instructions:
Answer the questions. For each correct answer you give, your car moves ahead one space. Each wrong answer advances your opponent's car one space. Do you know enough to win the race? Happy racing!


Click Here!


BackLinksNext
BACK | LINKS | NEXT

Talk to us!
Tell Beyond Books what you think of this page, ask us questions about our service, or report any problems. Students working on assignments should use Your Portfolios in Your Desk. Sorry, no homework help! Selected comments are shown on our User Comments page.
Your name:
Your e-mail:
Comments:
 

BEYOND BOOKS HOME ||| PROGRAMS ||| YOUR DESK ||| PORTFOLIOS ||| HELP

Copyright ©2007 Apex Learning Inc. All rights reserved. Patents D455,435 and D455,436.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Call Toll Free 1-800-453-6227 • Fax 206-381-5601

Beyond Books homepage