Marbury v Madison: Judicial Review
Marshall built his argument in three steps. First, he asked: Did Marbury have a right to his commission? Yes—once Adams signed it and Marshall sealed it, Marbury earned a legal right to the office. Second, he asked: Did the law provide a remedy when government violates a right? Yes—"the very essence of civil liberty" requires that courts protect legal rights, and a writ of mandamus is the proper remedy. Third, he asked: Can the Supreme Court issue that remedy under its original jurisdiction? No—because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act tried to expand the Court's original jurisdiction beyond what Article III permits, and when a statute conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution wins.
Marbury v Madison: Judicial Review
Marshall built his argument in three steps. First, he asked: Did Marbury have a right to his commission? Yes—once Adams signed it and Marshall sealed it, Marbury earned a legal right to the office. Second, he asked: Did the law provide a remedy when government violates a right? Yes—"the very essence of civil liberty" requires that courts protect legal rights, and a writ of mandamus is the proper remedy. Third, he asked: Can the Supreme Court issue that remedy under its original jurisdiction? No—because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act tried to expand the Court's original jurisdiction beyond what Article III permits, and when a statute conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution wins.
Marbury v Madison: Judicial Review
Marshall built his argument in three steps. First, he asked: Did Marbury have a right to his commission? Yes—once Adams signed it and Marshall sealed it, Marbury earned a legal right to the office. Second, he asked: Did the law provide a remedy when government violates a right? Yes—"the very essence of civil liberty" requires that courts protect legal rights, and a writ of mandamus is the proper remedy. Third, he asked: Can the Supreme Court issue that remedy under its original jurisdiction? No—because Section 13 of the Judiciary Act tried to expand the Court's original jurisdiction beyond what Article III permits, and when a statute conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution wins.