Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Marbury VS Madison

The Marbury Vs Madison is a case that took place in the 1800's. It was Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Thomas was a republican, and won the election against John Adams, who was the outgoing president. While it was Thomas Jefferson who was elected for president, John Adams had 58 members that were part of his own party, he was appointing these members to Thomas. The reason he did this was because he believed that Thomas was not strong enough and was afraid that something awful might happen with him in charge. John Marshall, he was the secretary of state and his job was to deliver the commissions, finish paper work, and to give it to new appointed judges. Marshall did complete and sign all of the commissions but I guess he supposivley "forgot" to deliver 17 and thought that they would get delivered by his successor. So when Thomas Jefferson became president he told his secretary of state, which was James Madison, to not deliver some of the commissions. He did this because he didnt want any of the members of the opposing political party to be in office, so that was his way of preventing them because without their commissions they could not take charge in office. John Adams had appointed William Marbury at last minute without a commission, as justice of the peace of the District of Columbia. Because of this Marbury sued James Madison. Marbury then asked the supreme court of United States to issue an, "writ of mandamus",it is when a court order that requires another court to take action of an act. In this case it meant that the court would have ordered Madison to deliver the commission. Marbury then argued saying that he was allowed to his commission and that the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court of the United States original jurisdiction to issue a "writ of mandamus", Madison dissagred with Marbury.When this case came to court John Marshall was the new chief Justice. If this case were to take place today, Marshall the Chief Justice, would disqualify him self due to conflict of interest.

No comments: