|
Marbury
Facts
William Marbury was appointed as a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia by President John Adams during the final days of Adams' presidency. However, Marbury's commission was not delivered before the new President, Thomas Jefferson, took office. As a result, the new Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver the commission to Marbury.
Issue
1. Does Marbury have a right to the commission he demands?
2. If Marbury has a right, and if that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?
3. And if the remedy is to be afforded to Marbury, does this remedy have to be issued from the Supreme Court?
Rules
11th section of the Act of Congress
Blackstone, 3d volume of his Commentaries, p. 23
Lord Mansfield in 3 Burrow, 1266. In the case of The King v. Baker et all
Application
1. Does the applicant have a right to the commission he demands?
- When a commission has been signed by the president, the appointment is made; and that the commission is complete when the seal of the United States has been affixed to it by the secretary of state.
- When the officer is not removable at the will of the executive, the appointment is not revocable, and cannot be annulled.
- The discretion of the executive is to be exercised until the appointment has been made. But after the appointment, his power over the office is terminated in all cases and cannot remove the officer by law. The right to the office is now with the appointee, and he has the absolute, unconditional power of accepting or rejecting.
- To withhold his commission, therefore, is an act deemed by the court not warranted by law, but violative of a vested legal right.
- If the officer is by law not removable at the will of the president, the rights he has acquired are protected by the law, and are not resumable by the president. They cannot be extinguished by executive authority, and he has the privilege of asserting them in like manner as if they had been derived from any other source.
2. If he has a right, and if that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?
- The office of justice of peace in the district of Columbia is an office worthy of the attention and guardianship of the laws.
- Is the act of withholding the commission a mere political act or a misconduct that could create a demand for remedy? (Misconduct)
3. And if the remedy is to be afforded, does this court have to be issued from this court? (nature of the writ applied for, power of court)
- It has already been stated that the applicant has, to that commission, a vested legal right, of which the executive cannot deprive him.
- He has been appointed to an office, from which he is not removable at the will of the executive; and being so appointed, he has a right to the commission which the secretary has received from the president for his use.
- The act of congress does not indeed order the secretary of state to send it to him, but it is placed in his hands for the person entitled to it; and cannot be more lawfully withheld by him than by any other person.
- He will obtain the office by obtaining the commission, or a copy of it from the record.
- The Supreme Court is authorized by the Constitution issue writs of mandamus to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.
- To enable this court, then, to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction.
- The authority, therefore, given to the supreme court, by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States, to issue writs of mandamus to public officers, appears not to be warranted by the constitution; and it becomes necessary to inquire whether a jurisdiction so conferred can be exercised.
4. The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest.
- This opens a room for discussion on what defines the duty of the judicial branch, as the court declares a previous rule unconstitutional.
- The power of the legislature, has to have limits, as without limits, it will be totally governing everything.
- The very essence of the judiciary duty, as the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, will entitle the court to govern everything concerning the Constitution.
Conclusion
Rule discharged
|