Hence the case was never reviewed by lower courts. Fact(s): The judicial Act of 1801 was implemented by John Adams, which would allow him to appoint justices of the peace. Prior to the inauguration of President Thomas Jefferson, soon to be former President John Adams directed his Secretary of State to deliver commissions for 42 new judges. The secretary of state failed to deliver 3 commissions before the exhaustion of his presidency. The new Secretary of State, James Madison, refused the remaining 3 appointments for justices of the peace.
The Greatest Debate of American history concerns the mysterious, and least understood branch of the United States government: The Supreme Court. The differences between those who favor activism and those who favor restraint are all apart of the biggest riff in our justice system since the beginning of the nation. Conservatives, or those who favor Judicial Restraint, believe the original intent of the founding fathers is (written in stone and it is not our responsibility to change such a great document) suitable for all generations, past, present, and future. These people believe that they have the power to interpret the founding fathers, so they have the power to manipulate the law, and power such as that should only rest in the hands of the executive and legislative branches. On the other hand, the liberals, or Judicial Activists, believe that the founding fathers recognized that standards of their time wouldn’t apply to the future, so therefore left the constitution broadly based and available for contemporary interpretation.
In the case Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court invalidated a law, passed by Congress, by declaring an act unconstitutional for the first time. The doctrine of Judicial Review was set forth by this case. The Court did not want to show vulnerability of its judicial prestige so it only asserted minimal power. Marshall’s decision suggests he was aware of the long-term objective to enhance judicial powers and diminish state autonomy. In Fletcher v. Peck in 1810 Marshall was ready to declare a state law unconstitutional.
The President signed the commissions as required by law and the Secretary of State at the time affixed the Presidential seal as required by law. James Madison as current Secretary of State refused to deliver these signed commissions to Marbury and the other nominees. Statement of the Rule: A law in conflict with the Constitution is void and it is the duty of the Court to determine if such a conflict exists. Holding: Marbury is not entitled to a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court requiring Madison to deliver the justice of the peace commission. Reasoning: The section of the Judiciary Act of 1792 (passed by Congress) relied on by Marbury which granted the Supreme Court the right to issue writs of mandamus to government officials was unconstitutional and therefore is void and of no effect.
The case began as John Adams tried to appoint a court full of federalist judges as his term ended before he handed the presidency over to Democratic-Republican, Thomas Jefferson. All of the processes did not get completed before Jefferson took office and he had his party put a halt put on the proceedings. There was a court case saying that this was unconstitutional. But the question that remained was what power and authority the court had to rule on this case. This case ultimately decided whether the Supreme Court had the power to decide whether the decisions of the other branches were unconstitutional.
To the extent that expert evidence relies upon an earlier report, the report will be hearsay. However, as per section 127, it may be admissible, but Running head: UNIT 4 ASSIGNMENT 7 only if the person who provided the original information can reasonably be supposed to have had personal knowledge of the matters stated. When expert evidence relies on such a statement, notice must be given to the defence, who must be given the name and address of the person whose statement is relied upon. The defence will then have an opportunity to object and where this occurs, the court must decide whether it is in the interests of justice to permit the expert to base his or her conclusion on the hearsay statement, or whether the supplier of the original information should also be called as a
Wordplay is the reason why most politicians seem to be lawyers not politicians. The questions brought up have been and always been either avoided or rather ingeniously walked around since the establishment of our constitution. Was it because our forefathers didn’t have an exact answer, did they foresee possible problems and left it open to time. Either way the lack of exact translation has shaped America and allowed alternate ideals to flourish. The author brings a question that although it almost has an obvious answer has been and still is a strong problem in the establishment of a fair and equal nation, and that question is “Who Is A Person”.
The power of the judiciary is to supervise the legislative and executive branches, with their job being to review the law, and interpret the constitution. If an action is unconstitutional, the justices’ job, during judicial review, is to pass judgment on the constitutionality of what our elected representatives have decided. The judicial review was not established until 1803 after a case heard by the United States Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury V. Madison. During the election of 1800, John Adams, Federalist, was not re-elected and was beat by Thomas Jefferson, Democratic-Republican. This left John Adams in a lame duck session.
BILL OF RIGHTS & AMENDMENTS Our forefathers never intended for the Constitution to be finished nor untouched. Article V of the Constitution, describes the process in the event and amendment is proposed and therefore creating the possibility of altering or ratifying the Constitution. The ratification process requires only one step, ratification of 3/4 of the states. Congress can write an amendment and pass it with 2/3 approval of congress, but it still needs 3/4 ratification of the states. According to "Ratification" (2012), “it is a principal's approval of an act of its agent where the agent lacked authority to legally bind the principal.
The Supreme Court is different from members of Congress or the President / Vice President in that the Court is actually insulated from public opinion and accountability to voters. Explain how the drafters of the Constitution tried to ensure that insulation. What about the Court or its powers might, in the end, make that difficult to maintain? Be sure to provide evidence to support your positions. The Supreme Court is the last place for someone to appeal, the Court hears cases appealed from the lower federal Courts or it might be from the higher state Courts.