On February 10, 1803, the Supreme Court met to hear the case. The Jefferson administration was represented by Attorney General Levi Lincoln Sr., while the Marbury camp was represented by his predecessor, Charles Lee. The case was based on three questions. First, were Marbury and the other appointees entitled to their commissions? Second, if they had a right that had been violated, did the federal law provide for a remedy? Finally, an order was issued by the United States. Marshall argued that all proper procedures had been followed: the commission had been duly signed and sealed. [15] Madison had argued that commissions were void if they were not delivered, but the court disagreed, stating that the remittance of the commission was only a custom and not an essential element of the Commission itself. [6] Marbury v. Madison (1803) is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States exercised judicial review for itself and the lower courts created by Congress, which could declare unconstitutional and null and void laws, executive and administrative measures found to be inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States. State courts eventually assumed parallel power over the country`s constitutions. Adams, meanwhile, rushed to fill as many more legal positions as possible before his political enemy, Thomas Jefferson, took office. On the eve of the end of Adams` term, he appointed 42 justices of the peace, a junior position that dealt with minor legal matters. After the Senate approved its decisions the next day, Marshall was tasked with completing paperwork and delivering orders. It was a lot of work and he couldn`t get four, including one owned by a Virginia politician named William Marbury.
The U.S. government has been categorically referred to as the government of laws, not the people. He will certainly cease to deserve this high title if the laws do not provide a remedy for the infringement of an acquired legal claim. Because Marbury`s mission was valid, Marshall writes, Madison`s restraint was a “violation of acquired title” on Marbury`s part. [16] The President of the United States, in signing the Commission, appointed Mr. Marbury, Justice of the Peace for Washington County in the District of Columbia, and the Secretary of State`s seal of the United States is a conclusive testimony to the accuracy of the signature and completion of the appointment; and this appointment gave him a legal right to the office for a period of five years. Consequently, since he has this legal right to office, he is entitled to the Commission, to a refusal of service, which constitutes a manifest violation of that right, for which the legislation of the country gives him compensation. In order to grant an adequate remedy to a mandamus, the official to whom such an act must be addressed in accordance with legal principles and the person requesting it must have no other specific remedy. has no other specific remedy, that court should be assisted by mandamus for reasons of justice, as expressed in the application, and for reasons of public order, in order to maintain peace, order and good government. This law, considered unconstitutional in the counties, was repealed and another system was introduced; However, the question whether, on the basis of that report, persons notified by judges as Commissioners were entitled to be entered on the pension list was a question of law that could be validly decided before the courts, even if the inclusion of such persons on the list had to be made by the head of a department.
for example, consideration is given to cases in which the law may entrust the President with the appointment of an official appointed by the courts or by heads of departments. In such a case, the award of a contract would appear to be a separate obligation from the order, performance of which might not be lawfully refused. If one of the heads of department, under cover of his office, commits an unlawful act as a result of which a person suffers harm, it cannot be said that his office alone exempts him from being prosecuted in the ordinary procedure and from being compelled to obey the judgment of the law. How, then, can his function exempt him from this particular way of deciding on the lawfulness of his conduct in such a situation where another person complained of by the complainant would authorise the proceedings? If the heads of government departments are the political or confidential officials of the executive branch, solely to carry out the will of the president, or rather to act in cases where the executive branch has constitutional or legal discretion, nothing could be clearer than their actions are only politically verifiable. However, if a particular obligation is assigned by law and individual rights depend on the fulfilment of that obligation, it seems equally clear that the person who feels violated has the right to invoke the laws of his country to remedy the situation. Sir. Marbury was then appointed because his commission was signed by the president and sealed by the secretary of state, and since the law creating the office gave the officer the right to remain independent of the executive branch for five years, the appointment was not revocable but was granted to the officer, who is protected by the laws of his country. At the same time, in what American jurist Laurence Tribe called “a story often told. [it] remains impressive,” Marshall v. Marbury ruled in a way that maneuvered Marbury`s simple request for a writ of mandamus in a case that raised an issue that went to the very heart of U.S.
constitutional law. [44] The American political historian Robert G. McCloskey described: Therefore, if he believes that, by virtue of his appointment, he has a legal right either to the commission issued to him or to a copy of that commission, that is also a matter that can be reviewed by a court, and the decision of the Court on this matter must depend on the opinion expressed by his appointment.