CONSTITUTIONALLAWI.docVIP

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I Course Overview Federal gvt powers Limits on state gvts Separation of powers Individual rights Judicial Review Marbury v. Madison (US 1803) Most important case in the history of American law; establishes judicial review of federal laws to determine if they’re constitutional Marbury was petitioning the SC to issue a writ of mandamus against Secretary of State James Madison, thereby forcing Madison to deliver a commission to Marbury. Justice John Marshall’s 3 questions in the case: (1) Is Marbury entitled to the commission? Yes, he does have a vested right to his commission because he was properly assigned to office and the Secretary of State affixed a seal on his commission which was signed by the President, John Adams. The commission was merely not delivered. Marshall could have said that Marbury did not have a vested right to the commission until it was delivered. The case would have ended with this. Jefferson favored this view. (2) If he is, and his right to the commission has been violated, do the laws of this country afford him a remedy? Yes. Marshal distinguishes between a legal question and a political question. He says that mandamus is appropriate because this is a legal question. This is the process for determining whether the SC can review a law. Political questions would be up to the discretion of the executive branch, not the judicial branch. The executive branch has a discretionary duty. Rights involved are national (foreign affairs, etc.). The SC cannot review political questions. Legal questions depend on the law and must be analyzed under the law. The executive branch has a mandatory legal duty. Legal questions involve a person’s individual right. The SC can review legal questions. Marshall could have said that Marshall himself should not have been sitting in this case because his brother (3) If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court? 3 sub-questions: (a) Is the writ of manadamus the app