Marbury v. Madison and It's Effects on the United States Today Term Paper

Marbury v. Madison and It's Effects on the United States Today - Term Paper Example The rising power of Adams-appointed Marshall also pushed the judiciary into the political struggle between Federalists and Republicans and made the Marbury v. Madison a critical pawn in the government's political chess (Henderson, 2010, p.43). This paper summarizes the facts and decision in the Marbury v. Madison and explores the effects of its ruling on the United States today. It argues that the Marbury v. Madison emphasized the role of the independent judiciary, separation of the judiciary from political squabbles, and the importance of checks-and-balances in the American government. Marbury v. Madison: A summary As his term ended, President John Adams had made a number of federal appointments, including William Marbury, as justice of the peace in the District of Columbia, in the process known as â€Å"midnight appointments.† Thomas Jefferson, the new president, noticed the pile of documents related to these appointments and refused to recognize them, including Marbury's ap pointment. The Secretary of State James Madison should have delivered these appointments, but he followed Jefferson and did not deliver Marbury's commission (Henderson, 2010, p.59). Marbury sued Madison, and the Supreme Court handled the case. ... The primary question is that: Could Congress, based on the 1789 law, broaden the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as indicated in Article III of the Constitution? Article III clearly stated that: â€Å"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to Law and Fact† (qtd. in Henderson, 2010, p.60). Marshall argued that according to the Judiciary Act of 1789, delivering these commissions for judges and justices was unconstitutional, since it provided higher authority to the Supreme Court, which infringed on Article III of the Constitution. The Congress did not have the authority to expand the powers of the Supreme Court. Hence, the Supreme Court ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional and should not be followed. Since the law that prov ided authority to the Court in issuing writs of mandamus was void, the Court could not give a writ of mandamus and Marbury v. Madison had been dismissed. Effects of the Marbury v. Madison Independence of the Judiciary Marbury v. Madison asserted the role of an independent judiciary in having the â€Å"last word in law and the Constitution† (Sloan & McKean, 2009, p.49). Chief Justice Marshall established the Court's authority â€Å"to say what the law is† (Lively, 2000, p.392) and not have the executive and legislative power dictate how the law should be interpreted by the judiciary. This case is a landmark case, because it emphasizes the power of the judicial review in aligning laws with the Constitution. Marshall provided a â€Å"narrow† interpretation of the limits