Marbury v. Madison: The Foundation of Judicial Review

Categories: LawMarbury Vs Madison

Marbury v. Madison, a landmark Supreme Court case, has left an indelible mark on the course of American jurisprudence. During an era of skepticism surrounding the court's authority, this case not only bolstered public perception of the judiciary but also solidified the power of judicial review. In this comprehensive essay, we delve into the nuanced arguments presented in an article discussing the Marbury v. Madison decision, highlighting the constitutional voidance of laws conflicting with its provisions.

Contextualizing Marbury's Pursuit

Marbury's pursuit of a writ of mandamus, compelling Secretary of State James Madison to deliver his Supreme Court commission, provides the backdrop for this historic case.

Central to this narrative is the Judiciary Act of 1789, the contested law that triggered a constitutional confrontation. It is crucial to understand that, in this instance, Marbury sought a writ of mandamus for a specific purpose—his appointment to the Supreme Court.

Judicial Interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1789

The first compelling piece of evidence supporting the author's thesis involves the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Get quality help now
Writer Lyla
Writer Lyla
checked Verified writer

Proficient in: Law

star star star star 5 (876)

“ Have been using her for a while and please believe when I tell you, she never fail. Thanks Writer Lyla you are indeed awesome ”

avatar avatar avatar
+84 relevant experts are online
Hire writer

This foundational law was called into question, and the court ruled a section of the act to be in direct conflict with the Constitution. Specifically, the conflict revolved around the distinctions between appellate and original jurisdiction.

Appellate Jurisdiction vs. Original Jurisdiction

Marbury filed the case under original jurisdiction, seeking the delivery of his commission. The Judiciary Act of 1789, in Section 13, granted the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction, allowing it to issue writs of mandamus. However, Chief Justice Marshall asserted that Marbury's filing under original jurisdiction restricted the court's authority to issue such a writ.

Get to Know The Price Estimate For Your Paper
Number of pages
Email Invalid email

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

"You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"
Write my paper

You won’t be charged yet!

This meticulous examination of the constitutional nuances laid the groundwork for the court's pivotal decision, strengthening the principle that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void.

The Separation of Powers Doctrine

The author reinforces their thesis by delving into the separation of powers doctrine, a cornerstone of the American system of governance. By highlighting the constitutionally defined powers of each government branch, the author argues against legislative interference in the functions of the judiciary. This constitutional demarcation is intended to prevent conflicts such as the one witnessed in Marbury v. Madison where an act of Congress attempted to dictate the function of the Supreme Court.

Limiting Legislative Authority

The article contends, “The powers of the legislature are defined and limited, and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” This assertion reinforces the idea that the legislative branch cannot dictate rules conflicting with the Constitution to the judiciary. While acknowledging the system of checks and balances, a potential weakness arises when a law, contradicting the Constitution, is not yet challenged in court. Despite this, the argument substantiates the thesis by underlining the judiciary's autonomy in interpreting constitutional consistency.

Questioning the Thesis: A Thought Experiment

The author's most compelling argument involves a thought experiment questioning the very essence of the thesis. If both a law and the Constitution apply to a case, the court, according to the author, must decide either in line with the constitution or the law. This line of reasoning, grounded in common sense, strengthens the thesis by highlighting the Constitution's supremacy as the "supreme law of the land."

The Constitution as the Supreme Law

The essay points out, “In declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution is first mentioned.” This acknowledgment underscores the Constitution's precedence and purpose. If laws inconsistent with it were not void, the Constitution would serve no purpose. If these laws not void under the Constitution were indeed a reality, it would diminish the entire American government. This specific argument was justified by stating, “In practice, completely obligatory.”

Championing Judicial Review's Enduring Legacy

Supporting the author's conclusions, this essay aligns with the idea that the Constitution holds supremacy, rendering any legislative act inconsistent with it void. The establishment of judicial review through Marbury v. Madison marked a watershed moment in American jurisprudence, providing the Supreme Court with the authority to review and invalidate laws contrary to the Constitution. By upholding this principle, the court safeguards the constitutional order and ensures the enduring strength of the American government.

Implications and Contemporary Relevance

The ramifications of the Marbury v. Madison decision extend far beyond the historical context in which it occurred. This landmark case not only clarified the constitutional framework but also set the stage for the judiciary's role in shaping the nation's legal landscape. The enduring legacy of judicial review continues to influence contemporary legal debates and decisions.

Shaping Legal Precedence

Marbury v. Madison established the judiciary as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional interpretation. This power has allowed subsequent courts to shape legal precedence and adapt to the evolving needs of society. The case's impact resonates in decisions that navigate complex issues such as civil liberties, executive powers, and the delicate balance between federal and state authority.

Conclusion: A Pillar of Constitutional Adjudication

In conclusion, Marbury v. Madison stands as a pillar of constitutional adjudication, reinforcing the supremacy of the Constitution and introducing the critical concept of judicial review. This essay has explored the multifaceted arguments presented in an article discussing the Marbury v. Madison decision. From the intricacies of jurisdiction to the profound implications of the separation of powers doctrine, each aspect contributes to the understanding of why a law repugnant to the Constitution is deemed void.

Updated: Dec 15, 2023
Cite this page

Marbury v. Madison: The Foundation of Judicial Review. (2021, Dec 13). Retrieved from

Marbury v. Madison: The Foundation of Judicial Review essay
Live chat  with support 24/7

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

get help with your assignment